Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of MR. SPEAKER from this day's sitting.

Whereupon MR. HAROLD WALKER, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Truancy

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the details of his renewed effort to tackle truancy, as promised in the White Paper "Better Schools".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 22 March, at column 626, a draft circular on school attendance and education welfare services was sent on 21 March to local authority and teacher associations and to other relevant organisations. Comments on the document have been sought by the end of June and it is hoped that the final version of the circular will be issued soon after that date.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of truancy is particularly worrying in the fourth and fifth years, especially in the light of a recent report that in Salford schools 20 per cent. non-attendance occurs every day? Does my hon. Friend regret the shocking fact that today's truant is very often tomorrow's unemployed, and, worse still, tomorrow's unemployable?

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention and that of the House the report on the school in the city of Salford. I undertake that inquiries will be made. I am sure that the House will accept his other observation as well. There are a number of reasons why young people play truant from school, and we are grappling with the causes in many ways. I hope that, in future, many people who encourage children to play truant, whether parents, employers or others, will think long and wisely about their action in taking young people out of the classroom, which can only be to the detriment of the young people concerned.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear that the lack of motivation for many young people in schools, which stems from the knowledge that they will be thrown on the scrapheap as soon as they leave school, with no job to go to, is one of the main causes of truancy? Is it not also clear that a better pupil-teacher ratio, so that children can be better taught, particularly at that age, would be helpful? When the Minister has handled that problem, will he deal with the truancy in this place, which is enormous compared with that in schools?

Mr. Dunn: My responsibilities do not extend to the House. The hon Gentleman's interpretation is, as usual, far too simplistic and therefore unhelpful. There are a variety of reasons why young people play truant, and we should address our minds to those matters rather than make party political points.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to combat truancy is to improve the quality, and not the quantity, of teachers, as the better the teacher the easier it is to maintain the interest of a pupil?

Mr. Dunn: I agree, and we are attempting to make the curriculum broader and more relevant and attractive to young people who are, to use the vernacular, turned off by what happens in schools today. My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of what is needed.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that since the end of the war the level of truancy in shire county schools has hardly changed, by and large, taking into account areas such as that covered by the Derbyshire education authority? Will he bear in mind that I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that it is bordering on hypocrisy for Tory Members to talk about absenteeism when some hon. Members turn up for less than 30 per cent. of the time —[Interruption] like the leader of the SDP, who voted in only 30 per cent. of all the Divisions in the last parliamentary Session?

Mr. Dunn: There was an Opposition debate yesterday on the social services, during which the Opposition Benches were empty. If the proportions had remained the same as they were in 1945, far too many young people would still be playing truant from school.

Universities (Jarratt Report)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Jarratt report about efficiency in universities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Sir Alexander Jarratt's steering committee for efficiency studies in the universities, which was set up by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, has produced recommendations which merit serious and early consideration by those to whom they are addressed. My right hon. Friend will be considering with the CVCP and the University Grants Committee how the report can best be pursued.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister not agree that the Jarratt report indicted the Government for the way in which they had imposed the 1981 cuts, which led not to greater efficiency within the universities, but to short-term


inefficiency, and took the view that if the Government continue to insist that university resources should be cut by 1 or 2 per cent. each year the situation will become even worse? Was not the strongest recommendation of the report the suggestion that we should return to a quinquennial review system so that the universities could have a continual re-assessment of funding, on level terms at least?

Mr. Brooke: The Government accept that they must give the best possible indication of longer-term policies for higher education. However, the difficulties of providing precise funding indications are the same for higher education as for other public expenditure programmes. Planning requires the management of resources in circumstances of uncertainty. The Green Paper on higher education policy, which the Government hope to publish shortly, and the subsequent discussions, will help to set the scene for the development of higher education policy into the next decade.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: After the publication of the study of efficiency in the universities, is it the Minister's intention to produce a Green Paper on scientific research in the universities? If so, when does he propose to introduce it?

Mr. Brooke: The Green Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to publish on higher education, which will be issued shortly, will certainly cover that subject.

Mr. Pawsey: How much funding is reaching the universities from industry? Is my hon. Friend aware of what has taken place at Warwick university, especially at the business school and the science park there? Does my hon. Friend appreciate how much funding is reaching our universities from private sources?

Mr. Brooke: I can give my hon. Friend the encouraging news that since 1979 contributions to universities from private sources of one sort or another have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms.

Education Needs (Bradford)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to meet education needs in Bradford.

Mr. Dunn: It is for Bradford to provide for education within the total resources available to the authority.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister appreciate that the education crisis in Bradford does not flow from the parents, from a headmaster who has insulted many of his pupils' parents and caused them to lose confidence in him, or from teachers and pupils who are trying to work together in schools, many of which are old, dilapidated, overcrowded, under-staffed and seriously under-equipped? When will the Government give Bradford the money to combat its education crisis and enable it to give the young people there a decent start in life and provide the education which parents are fully entitled to expect for their children?

Mr. Dunn: I am fully aware of the problems at Bradford, but it is for the authority to balance its judgment of the need to spend on services against the interests of the local ratepayer.

Mr. Galley: My hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties of multi-racial education in Bradford and other

parts of west Yorkshire, and the issues raised by the disgraceful hounding of Mr. Honeyford. In a number of instances in west Yorkshire and Bradford there are racial minorities within a school with a large ethnic majority. Will my hon. Friend issue guidance to local education authorities to ensure that they adopt an even-handed approach and give the educationally disadvantaged special attention, whether they are brown, black, yellow or white?

Mr. Dunn: We are concerned about disadvantaged children, irrespective of their background. The House ought to know that the Department of Education and Science is currently investigating Mr. Honeyford's case under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role in that matter, I cannot comment further.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that Bradford has many Asian and other immigrant people? Does he agree that the Honeyford case is a red herring, brought up by the Tory representatives on the council to cover up the colossal shortage of the amount of money that is needed to provide the type of pupil-teacher ratio required in Bradford's schools because they have so many immigrant children? Will he take account of the fact that rate capping has an effect on the education of our children? These are the real issues, not the Honeyford case. Will the Minister pay attention to them?

Mr. Dunn: Bradford's primary and secondary school pupil-teacher ratios were at their lowest ever level, at 20 and 17·4 respectively, at January 1984. Both ratios have fallen significantly since 1982, when they were 20·9 and 18·9 respectively. Those figures do not suggest a decline in provision.

Drug Abuse (Teacher Training)

Mr. Sackville: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to provide central funding for specialised in-service courses for teachers in the problems of drug abuse.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Under the Department's programme for supporting regional in-service training courses, regional courses concerned with drug misuse, and arranged in consultation with the Department, will be eligible for central funding.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend feel that to have one key teacher who understands something about drugs in each school is the minimum that we need to tackle the problem? Does he feel that his Department has done enough to achieve that end?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the purpose of my hon. Friend's question. The Government are now addressing themselves to ensuring that more information is available on which crucial groups such as teachers can rest with self-confidence in their detection of and advice to those concerned.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Secretary of State aware that after only one shot of heroin some youngsters are on a short journey to death? Has he had an opportunity to read in today's Daily Mirror the tragic story of Fiona Marshall, aged only 17? Does he acknowledge the tremendous campaign being run by the Daily Mirror against drug abuse, and does he agree that that campaign, calling for


advice, co-ordination and treatment on drug addiction and for drug addicts, is vital? Does he further agree that the Govermnent's suggestion of providing £2 million is insufficient and that there should be a massive injection of cash into schools so that people can be caught early and given treatment?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not want in any way to minimise the importance which the hon. Gentleman rightly wishes to give the subject or to the efforts of the Daily Mirror, but we are advised that there is a danger of being counterproductive and of glamourising the subject. That is why we are taking care to put together constructive advice for those immediately concerned.

Sir Bernard Braine: Although shock tactics might not always be the right answer for drug misuse by young children, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot start too early to warn young children of the dangers involved? Will he take seriously the suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)? Is he contemplating issuing any directive to local education authorities on the subject? He must surely be aware that the problem is serious, and growing.

Sir Keith Joseph: My right hon. Friend has a fine record in trying to mobilise solutions to a parallel social problem — alcoholism — and I take what he says extremely seriously. He mentioned the key element—the danger of giving the wrong impression and of steering children in the wrong direction. There is also danger in trying to bring the truth to children at too early an age, as is might do more harm than good. Nevertheless, I take the subject extremely seriously.

Teacher Training

Mr. Sedgemore: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the future number of teacher training places.

Mr. Dunn: Provisional decisions on intakes to initial teacher training in England and Wales from 1986 were announced last month. We propose that intakes to primary training should increase from 8,620 in 1985 to 10,950 by 1989 and that intakes to secondary training over the same period should increase from 9,032 to 9,850.

Mr. Sedgemore: Will the Minister confirm that the number of graduates seeking teacher training places has fallen by 16 per cent.? Does he agree that if we are to raise numbers and standards we must pay teachers adequately?

Mr. Dunn: I undertake to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and to write to him. I think he shares our concern that the quality of the teacher is important in the life of the school and in the educaton that a child receives. When CATE, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, has finished its work, we shall be somewhat further forward in that goal.

Mr. Forman: Adequate teacher training numbers are obviously important, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efforts of his Department and others to improve the curriculum of teacher training colleges so that the element of teacher training practice is given suitable prominence?

Mr. Dunn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As he will know, last September

we appointed to CATE a number of people who will have a great deal of work to do in that regard in the assessment of courses. He will share my concern that that work is done as soon as possible so that we may bring the results to bear in the classroom, where they are needed.

Mr. Haynes: Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of himself? [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister can hear me. He should be, and the Secretary of State should also be ashamed. They have every reason to be ashamed of the teacher training figures, when many of those with the necessary qualifications are sweeping the streets when they should be teaching the children. When will Ministers wake up and do the job for which they have been elected?

Mr. Dunn: I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman. Unemployment among teachers rose early in the 1980s largely as a result of the fall in pupil numbers, which has now ended, in primary schools. The number of vacancies for primary school teachers is expected to rise for a number of years, and training intakes have been adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Radice: Is not the real reason why the number of teacher training applicants is reported to be down this year the fact that the message is getting through that teaching is a badly paid job? Does that not provide a further powerful argument for the Government to respond positively to the call from the management side of Burnham for extra resources from the Government to help solve the teachers' dispute?

Mr. Dunn: That supplementary question would be best directed to a group of questions which will be answered together later. There are still a far greater number of applicants for places at teacher training institutions than there are vacancies at those institutions.

Teachers (Pay)

6. Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the level of teachers' pay.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have received about 1,300 letters, including some 300 from hon. and right hon. Members, about all aspects of the current pay dispute.

Mr. Cohen: Is it not a fact that under the pressure of the county council elections the employers are beginning to see the light and are adopting a new negotiating position? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for the Government to be more forthright and to improve the funds which they are making available so that a proper settlement, which recognises the excellent worth of the teachers to the community, can be reached?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not quoting the employers' statement. The employers, in a carefully drafted statement, say that they want to discuss with me
the basis upon which additional resources can be sought.
I think they mean by that statement that they want to discuss with me, and with the teachers, the offer that I have made, namely, that if the teachers and employers can make a bargain which I judge to be to the educational benefit of the children and to be affordable, I shall at once take it to my Cabinet colleagues to see whether I can obtain from them — I cannot guarantee the answer — extra finance. That is what the employers were referring to.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' dispute.

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the teachers' strike.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: Management's offers of a 4 per cent. increase, arbitration and further discussion of pay structure reform remain on the table. All three have been rejected. The two largest teacher unions are set on a course of intensified industrial action, causing deliberate harm to children's education, in support of their claim for an extra £1,200 for all teachers. That claim is wholly unrealistic and no amount of industrial action will change the fact that increases of that order are not remotely affordable.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) advocated the expenditure of £50 million to employ 14,000 more teachers, which works out at £3,500 per teacher? Is that not totally unrealistic? Is not the real solution to the teachers' dispute to be found through negotiations, rather than through disruption or unrealistic claims?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend that negotiations on one of the three options open to the teachers is the way forward. I think that before the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) says anything about the current teachers' dispute, he should explain to the House how he justifies his view, which seems to emerge from his press statement, that £50 million will buy 14,000 extra teachers; that is to say, £3,500 per teacher.

Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that appraisal will not be linked to the quality of teaching—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and does he accept that the introduction of merit awards in a low-pay sector would have disastrous consequences?

Sir Keith Joseph: I shall make no such pledge. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that promotion, which carries with it higher pay, is, of course, already based on an informal system of assessment or appraisal, and that what the Government seek is that that system of appraisal should be made formal with the agreement and with the help of teachers through discussions. I am saying, not that appraisal has to be connected with merit pay, but that the whole subject should be discussed and tried out in pilot schemes for which money from the taxpayer has been set aside. The one inexcusable thing is to refuse even to discuss it, which is what the teachers' unions are doing.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend try to answer a question which was put to me by a constituent at the weekend and which I found difficult? Why, he asked me, did the teachers last year go on strike because they could

not get arbitration, and why are they taking strike action this year even though they have been offered arbitration? As my constituent also said, is it not emerging from some of the teachers' leaders that their ambition is to try to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by organising a strike in this way?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that the apparent contradiction to which my hon. Friend refers must be explained by the fact that last year the teachers obtained from arbitration only 0·6 of 1 per cent. more than they had already been offered. The idea that an arbitrator can, as it were, find free and floating in the air extra resources is part of the Utopian approach of many Opposition Members.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the conference over Easter of the two major teachers' unions, embracing the vast majority of all teachers, the most determined unity emerged? Does he not realise that it is useless for him to say that he does not decide the wages of teachers, but that the employers do? He knows that he has 15 votes on the Burnham committee and that he decides the teachers' wages. Does he accept that the unity of the teachers is so massive that unless new money is put on the table, separate from the negotiations on reappraisal, this strike and industrial dispute will go on indefinitely and will be the longest teachers' action of all time?

Sir Keith Joseph: I pay tribute to those teachers' unions, and to the members of other teachers' unions, which have decided not to disrupt children's education. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the teachers' unions are unanimous. In fact, I seem to detect among them a great deal of disagreement about what they should or should not be seeking to do. Indeed, some unions disagree with the whole idea of causing disruption.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers, in encouraging strike action, thereby disrupting children's education, is doing immense damage to the professional standing of teachers? Does he further agree that the only way to settle their pay claim is either by returning to the restructuring talks on teachers' salaries or by going to arbitration? Will he confirm that any award made by arbitration under section 3 of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 is binding and can be turned down only by a vote of both Houses of Parliament, on the basis that the economic conditions of the country do not allow it to be implemented?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all that my right hon. and learned Friend says. I believe, in addition, that the leadership of the NUT was guilty of grossly misleading its members in the expectations that it aroused last year—witness the arbitration award—and is doing so again this year.
I should like to take the opportunity of my right hon. and learned Friend's question to say that, while an arbitration award would be binding, except in the circumstances that he described, the Government still stand by their refusal to find any extra money for the honouring of an arbitration award which, over the level of the offer already made by the employers, would have to come out of local authority funds.

Mr. Fatchett: Given the Secretary of State's obstinate refusal to play a constructive part in looking for a solution to the dispute, how far does he personally feel responsible for the disruption of the education of children in his own constituency and in the city of Leeds? Is that not really an indictment of his own period in office as Secretary of State?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is guilty of thinking that it is constructive to spend taxpayers' money regardless of the consequences. We have been through that period under both Labour and Conservative Governments, and the result has been rocketing inflation and rocketing unemployment. That would be no service to the teachers, to the children or to their parents.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying firmly and fairly that schools are, first and foremost, for children and their education? Further, will he join me in saying that it was excellent that the teachers' conference decided not to disrupt examination invigilation? However, is it not deplorable that some examination teaching may be disrupted? Is it not also important to say that all education, not just examinations, is important and that the teachers should call off their strike straight away?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the Opposition, by accepting the dogma of more spending regardless of the consequences, are espousing a thoroughly perverse set of policies. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Opposition spokesman, must explain how he can offer, as he did in his press conference last week, hundreds of millions of pounds—indeed, over £1,000 million — of extra spending. He gave no explanation at the time. The hon. Gentleman has evidently not costed in the £200 million the implications of what he was pleased to pledge—the phasing out of private schools. Presumably he does not take that seriously, as he did not cost it at all.
The hon. Gentleman has also failed to cost the implications in hundreds of millions of pounds of the pledge which he has made, and will reinforce tomorrow, I understand, to provide nursery education for all. He has grossly underestimated the cost and has priced teachers at a salary of £3,500 each. The hon. Gentleman really must explain the cost of what he has left out and how any Labour Government, which I pray are unlikely to be returned, would find the money.

Mr. Radice: I thank the Secretary of State for devoting at least most of his answer to the Labour party programme. I must say that it is a bit rich for him to talk about costs when his own White Paper is not costed at all. He knows perfectly well that his own White Paper would cost £1 billion to implement. He has not come clean with the House. Is he aware that the Conservative Central Office has not understood that £50 million was a net figure? The right hon. Gentleman intends to cut the number of teachers by over 6,000 in the coming year. Finally — [Interruption.] —and let us get back to the teachers' dispute, which he started—is he now saying that he will respond positively—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions from the Front Bench should be brief—all questions should be brief—and should be listened to with courtesy and attention.

Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State going to respond positively to the request from the management side of Burnham for extra resources — and that is in the statement—to help solve the teachers' dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: The question is whether the Labour Opposition intend, if given the chance, to phase out independent education. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is riot the question."] If so, why did they not include the cost of it in the budget in the Labour party programme?

Adult Education

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will convene a conference of organisations concerned with adult and continuing education to discuss the future of this part of the education service.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have no plans to do so. I spoke last week at the annual conference of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and, during questions, offered to meet some of those present on specific aspects.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware of the universal dissatisfaction with Government policies of all interested organisations because of the constant cutting of resources in adult continuing education? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman not only to meet the body, which is not fully representative, as he knows, but to meet all representatives to answer the criticisms which some of us receive virtually every week. In particular, in the case of an adult who is capable of taking and wishes to take a university degree, will he say that there will be no obstacles to that adult doing so, not only for his personal fulfilment, but for the good of the country?

Sir Keith Joseph: I share with the hon. Gentleman a great respect for all those who work in adult education. I will gladly meet, as I have offered, various groups from those concerned. But I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing injustice to Government policy. He is probably accepting the figures contained in the White Paper on public expenditure without taking account of the unallocated margin, and he forgets that the Government, to their credit, have four new initiatives in adult education, for which they have provided extra money.

Mr. Squire: As my right hon. Friend takes direct responsibility for adult education, will he apply his considerable intellect to breaking the cycle of poorly educated parents producing poorly education children, and recognise that one of the most effective ways of doing that is through an expansion of the adult education programme?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree about the importance of breaking that cycle to the extent that that is humanly possible. I also accept that the adult education work done through "Outreach" can do much to help. I respect that, and will try to encourage it.

Mr. Sheerman: The Secretary of State challenged teachers at last week's conference to explain their role in motivating the disadvantaged, but they could tell him that, as professionals, they know how to do that if they are given the resources to carry out the work. Is it not true that this Government do not believe in further and continuing education, as illustrated by the cuts in local authority


provision, in extramural departments, and in the Open University, as well as by the savage cuts in aid to the Workers Education Association?

Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat that to the extent that adult education can help to break that cycle, I shall seek to encourage it to do so. The hon. Gentleman's story of cuts is not accurate. The unallocated margin explains that adult education spending by local authorities may not be cut at all.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to replace the present negotiating machinery for teachers' pay with a system which directly links pay with performance.

Sir Keith Joseph: The current pay structure for school teachers, as negotiated by the Burnham primary and secondary committee, allows employers some discretion, through scale promotions, to relate pay to performance. I am not persuaded that the replacement of the negotiating machinery is the key to bringing about a structure in which pay is more directly linked to performance.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those who take so-called industrial action should abide by the other rules by which those involved in industry have to live, where pay is directly linked to performance? Is it not time that my right hon. Friend introduced legislation to sweep away the present machinery and impose a system of pay related to performance?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept that it is the machinery that prevents a move in the direction that my hon. Friend seeks. The experience before our eyes in Scotland shows that even when the machinery is reformed in the way that he now seeks the results are not as had been hoped for.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of teachers are dedicated, overworked and underpaid, and that if a system were introduced to link ministerial pay to performance he would be sent home with an empty pay packet?

Sir Keith Joseph: Underneath the banter, there is a certain amount of common ground between us — [interruption]—I stress "a certain amount." I accept that most teachers are dedicated and hardworking. I also believe that most of them would welcome a system of appraisal in the preparation of which they had had some say.

Mr. Madel: As the important salary restructuring talks need to proceed, will my right hon. Friend remind those involved in the negotiations that the Government's aim is to reward the effective classroom teacher with improved pay and promotion prospects?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The Government have declared their intention to introduce legislation and extra finance to expand in-service training so that an appraisal system can back up improved professional and career prospects, as well as perhaps having an influence on pay.

Engineering and Science (Undergraduates)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the recently announced increase in places for undergraduates in engineering and science.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend announced on 3 April the 20 institutions which should participate in the first phase of the programme and gave details of the relevant departments and the proposed intakes. The second phase of the engineering and technology programme will be announced later.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the increasing shortage of engineering and science graduates and technicians, can he reassure me that this switch is not really a switch, and that the increase in places for engineering and science is not simply a substitution for places in other disciplines?

Mr. Brooke: The Government have been urged frequently by industry in the past year that the number of students in engineering and technology, and particularly in information technology subjects, should be increased. The programme which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced is in response to that.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that only a very temporary glut in the supply of micro circuits has prevented the demand for electronic engineers going through the roof this year? Is he further aware that the proposed increase in the production of engineers is totally inadequate, given the demands of industry?

Mr. Brooke: We are confident that the industry can certainly absorb more graduates with appropriate qualifications. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share his faith in manpower planning, but he will be glad to know that an IMS study is being conducted on demand for and supply of information technology manpower.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Rene of the Seychelles.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister confirm her cynical policy to reform the rating system before the next general election? In view of the disastrous situation now facing Scottish ratepayers, will she immediately authorise an emergency allocation of £100 million—only 1 per cent. of the cost of Trident—to ease their burden? Instead of visiting Singapore and Bali, will she visit Shettleston and Baillieston to see the consequences of her policy, or is she afraid to leave London and visit other parts of Britain?

The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, be going up to Scotland in May, as is customary. I cannot agree to the allocation of £100 million. As the hon. Gentleman is


aware, we have made a special allocation to help the domestic ratepayer, who is particularly hard hit. I am aware that a number of commercial ratepayers are also particularly hard hit. If local authorities were to spend less, that would be a great help to ratepayers.

Mr. Steel: As the Secretary of State for Employment has given a cautious welcome to the setting up of the Employment Institute, and the chairman of the Conservative party has sought to belittle it, will the right hon. Lady say which of her colleagues' views she supports?

The Prime Minister: Everyone who can help to solve the problem in practical terms, as distinct from talking about it, is welcome. I hope that some of them will be able to create new businesses which, in practice, will create new jobs. In the meantime, I recognise that two of the suggestions which it has proposed which would help have already been put in hand by this Government. For example, it has proposed a cut in the employers' national insurance contribution, and that has already occurred. It has proposed an increase in the community programme, and that has already occurred. It would seem that we have a number of things in common.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by some of us at the remark made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia during her recent visit that the Commonwealth is now just a sentimental attachment? Does she agree that it is a unique grouping of nations which, given the will, have the potential to play a major part in world development and peace?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the Commonwealth still has a role. It is a unique group of nations which girdle the world. We meet alternate years in conference, and there are regional conferences. I believe that that is valuable both politcally and economically and for technical co-operation. I believe that Malaysia, too, will find it valuable.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister tell us why, after seven Conservative Budgets, workers on average earnings and half average earnings are paying a higher proportion of those earnings in tax and national insurance than under the previous Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. Were the rates of income tax and the structure as in 1979 when we took them over, people would be paying £6 billion more in income tax. The Conservative Government put up thresholds—that is, tax-free allowances—in real terms by 16 per cent., whereas the Labour Government put down tax-free allowances in real terms.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Following the question from the leader of the Liberal party, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that she is prepared to welcome any groups of new people who may have time to spare and be willing to put themselves forward for the study of a possible solution to the problem of unemployment? Will she endorse the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning a group which may come up

with new ideas and which, even if it does not, certainly at the beginning of its life should be given some sort of welcome?

The Prime Minister: I hope that I have indicated my view. We need new business, and anything that will assist in the formation of new business will be helpful. We are already considering a number of measures, including tax incentives. In particular, we are reducing the considerable number of regulations and examining planning permission. Anything that is conductive to the development of new business will certainly be very helpful.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is now considering the report and recommendations of the review body on nurses' pay. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, as a matter of policy, she will support an award that at least will begin the return to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980? Will she also give an undertaking that in no circumstances will she finance any part of any award by taking money from the rest of the NHS?

The Prime Minister: Three reports arrived yesterday, including the report on nurses. We shall consider these reports together. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman undertakings in advance of proper consideration. He will be aware that he will be the first to accuse me of increasing public expenditure if we do so. He knows that the Labour party wants increased public expenditure, but he will be the first to accuse us if it results in increased interest rates or increased taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980. He will therefore be very much aware that this Government have done much better by the nurses than the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady, the country and the nurses will recall that that level was achieved because of the Clegg award, which the right hon. Lady opposed at the time but which had to be introduced because of the way in which she undertook during the general election campaign to take action. Can the right hon. Lady now tell me, without evasion, whether she agrees that public expenditure should be used to give justice and proper rewards to those who obviously deserve such rewards? Does the right hon. Lady think that the nurses are properly paid in 1985?

The Prime Minister: I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about Clegg. This Government honoured the Clegg award. The previous Labour Government, not having the resources, made empty promises which they left us to honour. This Government honoured the nurses' award and reduced their working week from 40 hours to 37½ hours. This Government have found the resources for 57,000 extra nurses and midwives. The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve even to ask that question.

Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit two weeks ago to the far east has been very much welcomed by British exporters? Would my right hon. Friend care to build on that by examining our overseas aid budget to ensure that it will generate the maximum activity at home, especially to create jobs? In particular, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the overseas aid and trade provision?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Exporters very much welcomed the visit. The visit to those


regions was necessary. I cannot give an undertaking to increase the overseas aid budget or the overseas aid and trade provision. We must examine carefully the distribution of that aid to maximise the number of jobs that we can secure in this country from the expenditure of that money.

Mr. Terry Fields: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fields: Will the Prime Minister admit that, despite her boast during her visit to semi-dictatorships in the far east that she saw off the miners, the miners' magnificent struggle for jobs has been the source of inspiration for those who are prepared to stand up and fight against unemployment, especially the young people and students who, supported by parents and teachers, will take strike action on Thursday against industrial conscription? In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady is prepared to introduce compulsory industrial conscription for 16-yearolds, is she prepared to give youth the vote at 16?

The Prime Minister: Although I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's meanderings, what is painfully clear is that he supports strikes. In doing so, he defeats the prospects for getting export jobs for this country. Then he will assuredly complain about unemployment. I doubt whether he really wants to solve the unemployment problem. If he did, he would not support strikes; he would support action to prevent strikes.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the emphasis placed upon education by the Labour party during the current county council elections, will my right hon. Friend take time today to look at that party's recent education proposals? Will she note that the Labour party's commitment to additional resources is equalled by its commitment and pledge to do away with independent schools? Therefore, despite all that the Labour party says about the shortage of resources, it is planning for no increase in expenditure on state education.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for so cogently making that point. As he will be aware, expenditure per pupil and the proportion of teachers to pupils in the state education system is at an all-time record under the Conservative Government. It is we who deliver the goods; it is the Labour party which does the talking.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister agree that the increase in inflation, on top of the appalling level of unemployment, confirms that the Government's monetarist policies are not working and are bringing only misery and deprivation to this country, especially in the inner city areas?

The Prime Minister: No. I think that many of us would be quite glad to have had the level of inflation that we now have for a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will recall that under the Labour Government inflation went up to 27 per cent. and that it fundamentally undermined the social as well as the financial fabric of this country.
As for unemployment, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have achieved record output, a record standard of living and record investment. We have a very considerable unemployment problem, but the answer to it

lies not in the direction which the hon. Gentleman would go, but in the formation of new small businesses, which will grow and create genuine jobs.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Following the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers would greatly enhance its reputation if it condemned the intolerable treatment by the miners who went on strike of those who chose not to go on strike? Does she further agree that the treatment of those who did not go on strike is an intolerable blot upon the reputation of the trade union movement?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the whole world knows that the miners' strike lasted for a year, that it was perpetuated through violence and intimidation, that it was supported by the Labour party, and that it was the Government, the working miners and the mass of the trade union movement that stood out against it and saw it off. I hope that my hon. Friend's advice will be taken in the quarters where it should be taken.

Mr. Home Robertson: May we have a little less humbug from the Prime Minister about rates in Scotland? Is she aware that in a written reply to me last week the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that, as a result of revaluation and successive cuts in rate support grant, domestic and commercial ratepayers in Scotland are bearing a 50 per cent. greater share of the burden of the costs of local services than they were when this Government came to power. So let us have a little less humbug. Will the Prime Minister admit that it is the Conservative Government who are responsible for the miseries of Scottish ratepayers?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to proportions. If the total expenditure were less, the burden on the domestic ratepayer would be less. Although comparatively few Scottish electors pay rates, Labour local authorities unfortunately do not hesitate to place an intolerable burden upon them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend noticed today that Dr. Sidney Gee has been awarded libel damages amounting to £75,000 against the "That's Life" programme? Does she agree that the time has come for the lawyers' profession to be investigated, just as every other profession is investigated, since the actual costs in that case, in order to obtain justice, amounted to £1.2 million? Has not the time come when those who are libelled should at least obtain a fairer share of the costs, instead of £1.2 million going to the lawyers?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that matter. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Law Officers.

Mr. O'Brien: Having advised the House that she has now received the report on nurses' pay, will the Prime Minister assure the House and the nurses that she will not sit on the report, as she did last year? Will she implement the decision as quickly as possible, given the full implications?

The Prime Minister: We have still more reports to receive. The one from the Top Salaries Review Body will be some time, and therefore we shall probably not wait for it. It has a number of matters to consider. I hope that we


shall be able to consider the rest before that one. There is still, of course, the doctors' and dentists' review body report to come. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that we must consider carefully how to find all the money that we decide must be found across the board, bearing in mind that it comes not from the Government but from taxpayers.

Later—

Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During education questions, the hon. Member for

Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) caught your eye in order to ask a question about truancy. Was it not a gross abuse of Question Time for the hon. Gentleman to raise such a subject when 90 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party were not in the Chamber, only one member of the Liberal party was present, and the Social Democratic party Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there was an abuse, it is being repeated now. I do not propose to let it continue.

Soviet Diplomats (Expulsion)

Mr. Denis Healey: (Leeds, East) (by private notice) asked the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the expulsion of Soviet diplomats from London and the Soviet response.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Our policy towards the Soviet Union is consistent and clear, and has been made clear to the Russians on numerous occasions including most recently when informing them of the expulsions. We wish to improve relations with the Soviet Union. We have made considerable efforts in that direction which will be maintained, but they have been hampered by the unacceptable activities of certain Soviet officials in this country. In the circumstances, and in accordance with our long-established policy, we had no choice but to expel the officials concerned.
We deeply regret the retaliatory action taken against three members of the staff of our Moscow embassy. That was wholly unwarranted, and the accusations made against them without substance. We have protested strongly to the Soviet authorities.
There can be no relaxation of our policy where national security is concerned, but we shall continue our policy of seeking improved relations with the Soviet Union, and better relations between East and West.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary will recognise that the Opposition approve his attempt to improve relations with the Soviet Union and welcome the progress that he has made in recent weeks. That makes it all the more difficult to understand why he mishandled the case of the behaviour of Soviet diplomats. As I understand it, the Foreign Office made it clear last night that it was prepared to ask three of the Soviet diplomats engaged in illegitimate activities to leave without publicity, on condition that the Soviets did not expel British diplomats in retaliation. In that case, why did he not approach all five diplomats in the same way, when he might have received an acceptable response? He must recognise now that the way in which he mishandled the case—the fact that he has made a distinction between two expelled with publicity and three expelled with the promise of no publicity—is difficult not just for the Opposition but for foreign diplomatists in Moscow to understand.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can sustain that charge. When the Soviet ambassador was informed last Thursday, he was told that Captain Los, the assistant naval attache, who had been found to have engaged in activities incompatible with his status, should leave the country within seven days. He was further informed that Mr. Grigorov, a member of the staff of the Soviet airline Aeroflot, was also found to have engaged in unacceptable activities and that, if he were still in the country in seven days, measures would be taken against him.
The ambassador was informed at the same time that we wished the Soviet authorities to withdraw a further three officials within one month for activities again incompatible with their status and presence in this country. The Soviet ambassador was also told that if, in response to the expulsion of Captain Los and Mr. Grigorov, the Soviet

authorities expelled any member of the British community in Moscow, we would then publicly expel the three named officials and reduce the Soviet embassy's ceiling accordingly. The Soviet authorities chose to disregard that warning and informed us last night of their requirement that three members of our embassy staff in Moscow should leave. It was in those circumstances that we informed the Soviet chargé d'affaires that three further named officials — Captain Zaikin, assistant naval attache, Colonel Cherkasov, assistant military attache, and Mr. Belaventsev, the third secretary, must also leave this country within seven days and that the appropriate embassy ceiling had been reduced.
In those circumstances, the way in which we handled the matter was consistent with our overall objective of wishing to diminish the impact of this incident on our search to improve East-West relations. We had also to take into account our intention to protect, as far as we could, the position of the British community in Moscow. It was on that basis that we gave the original information. It was as a result of the Soviet response that we found it necessary and right to follow through the original warning.
I must emphasise that this sort of incident arises because of unacceptable conduct by Soviet officials in this country. It is necessary to respond appropriately to such conduct and at the same time to underline the fact that we remain committed to improving relations between East and West. That fact was emphasised in each of the conversations with the Soviet ambassador and Soviet authorities during the past three days.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has confirmed my suggestion that he mishandled the affair. He still has not explained why he drew a distinction between announcing the expulsion of two of the offending diplomats and being prepared to keep secret the expulsion of the other three. Is it not the case that his hand was forced by a quite impermissible leak in a British national newspaper of his intention to expel the first two diplomats?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the position. We made it plain to the Soviet ambassador that we were requiring the withdrawal of five Soviet officials from this country. We intended to publicise the fact that two of them were required to withdraw within seven days, and we said that if the Soviet Union expelled any member of the British community in Moscow we would give publicity to the other three Soviet officials who were also required to withdraw.
It was handled in that way to give the Soviet Union the opportunity to avoid doing damage to the British community in Moscow and to give it the opportunity to withdraw five people, as we required, without publicity. It is because of the Soviet response that it has become undoubtedly necessary and right to give publicity, as we promised, to the three other people involved. The matter was handled throughout in a fashion entirely calculated to do the least damage to Anglo-Soviet relationships. The responsibility for what has happened rests upon the shoulders of those who have committed unacceptable activities in this country.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the years of creeping and crawling by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey), to the Soviets—when the right hon. Gentleman had influence—were as barren as they were


humiliating to this country? Is it not the position that Russia knew the rules, it broke them, it was caught, and it should now stop whining?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend puts the matter very clearly. It is because of the activities of Soviet citizens that these actions have been necessary. They have been carefully judged to make them as consistent as possible with our long-term desire to see a continued improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union.

Mr. James Callaghan: If the Foreign Secretary's intention was to safeguard the security of the country, to minimise damage to our relations with the Soviet Union and to protect the British community in Moscow, why did he give any publicity at all to the incident?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because if one is securing withdrawals in that way, accompanied by a reduction in ceilings, that inevitably leads to speculation about why that has happened. In addition, and in a wider sense, it is necessary in the case of conduct that threatens national security to demonstrate to all concerned, and not only the Soviet Union, that such activities cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his action. Is there any truth in the report that at least one of those expelled was trying to obtain information about British laser technology? Are any proceedings likely against a United Kingdom citizen as a result of investigations by the security services?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Action is taken in cases of this kind on the basis of irrefutable evidence, but the House would not expect me to give details about the background of this operation.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not at least give us some idea what these diplomats were doing, which might help the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman ignores the necessary, regular and prudent practice. It is not appropriate in places such as this to give any further details than I have given. I can assure him that the actions were based on irrefutable evidence.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that it would be disastrous if these expulsions prevented the continuing improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations? While I recognise the need at all times to protect our national security against any country, would it not be right for the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the Soviet authorities at the highest level that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to see a continued improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations? Should that not be made clear at the first opportunity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is entirely clear. We have to remain serious and vigilant in our protection of national security. We have to remain serious and realistic in our search for improved relations with the Soviet Union, and both those matters have to be considered alongside each other. I have made it plain, through the Soviet ambassador on Thursday, through the Soviet chargé d'affaires last night and through our ambassador to Moscow, that we intend to sustain our policy of searching for improvement in East-West relations, and with the

Soviet Union. I shall take an early opportunity, I expect when I meet Mr. Gromyko in Vienna early next month, to make the same point to him.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the affair. Does he agree that what is required in the handling of East-West relations is consistency? By undertaking this act, he has shown the Soviet Union that, unless it obeys the rules and behaves according to diplomatic circumstances, we shall not be prepared to forward our friendship with it, except on a proper basis?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree. We have always made it clear to the Soviet Union that our search for improved relations would have to be conducted on the basis of realism and proper reconciliation of the interests of both sides, and that includes continuing to take proper account of national security.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Presumably, the alleged offences of the three officials were less serious than those of the first two officials about whom we heard. Why did the Foreign Secretary think that restricting publicity to the first two would influence the Soviet response?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is customary in these cases to make a judgment of how far one publicises the action that one has taken, as has been pointed out. In this case, we judged that it was right to require the withdrawal of two Russians with publicity at the outset, to make it plain:hat such conduct would not be tolerated, while the withdrawal of the other three would not be accompanied by such publicity. We did so to try to limit the damage to the British community in Moscow. That was the intention and it is a matter of great regret that the Soviet Union chose not to respond to our suggestion in the way that we hoped.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the interesting contrast between the noisy if unconvincing protest of the Soviet embassy spokesmen in London on this issue on the one hand, and on the other the uncharacteristic silence of the state-controlled media in Moscow on the subject? Does my right hon. and learned Friend conclude from this, as I do, that this may be a case of the Soviet authorities knowing that they are in the wrong and hoping that this incident will not damage our long-term relations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly hope that the Soviet Union will draw that conclusion, and will recognise that such activities are bound to impair the process of improving relations. I hope that the Soviet Union recognises that we are serious in our intention to secure such an improvement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to protect the remainder of the day's business. I intend to take only two more questions from each side of the House.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the great majority of hon. Members and of the people of this country appreciate his realistic and determined approach to improved relations with the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc countries, and


thank him for it? They also appreciate his determined, even gentle, approach to matters concerning our security, which are of equal importance, and thank him for that, too.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does this case have further ramifications? Will any British citizens be arrested under the Official Secrets Act? Is it true that, as has been rumoured, a spy network has been uncovered?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to add to what I have said about the background to the case. In this as in every other case, the prosecuting authority will investigate the matter fully.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Soviet diplomats in the United Kingdom are given freedoms that British diplomats in the Soviet Union do not enjoy? If so, are there any plans to advise the Soviet Union that we shall restrict the movement of Soviet diplomats to the level of that of our diplomats in the Soviet Union?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not propose, at this time, in this case, to outline any of the steps that I may have in mind.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not the Foreign Secretary bungled it? Could not all five Soviet diplomats have been expelled without publicity, in private, as was done in previous cases by Labour Governments? Were not the first two expulsions publicised simply because the Government wanted to do some Commie-bashing?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question could not more clearly illustrate how completely he fails to understand the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We are not interested in Commie-bashing, as the hon.

Gentleman so crudely puts it. We are interested, and have been engaged on a sustained basis, in improving relations between East and West and between this country and the Soviet Union.
However, we must make it clear that that pursuit cannot be conducted at the expense of national security. In this case, it was necessary to give publicity to the initial expulsions to make it clear to all those who might be concerned in such activities that they will not be tolerated.

Mr. Healey: May I assure the Foreign Secretary that we share his suffering at the pompous congratulations that he has received from Conservative Members whose aim is to make relations between Britain and the Soviet Union more difficult, rather than less?
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind the damage that he has done to his major objective through his mishandling of this issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the greater cause for dismay—not suffering—is the patronising inaccuracy of his own question.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together the motions relating to draft Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the Building (Fourth Amendment) Regulations 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 488) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Housing (Limits of Rateable Value for Improvement Grants and Repairs Grants) (Scotland) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 297) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Protected Tenancies and Part VII Contracts (Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Order 1985 (S.1., 1985, No. 314) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Lancashire

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding local government services in Lancashire.
In the 1930s, the urban areas of Lancashire were deeply scarred. More than 50 per cent. of the insured population of many towns, including Blackburn, Preston and Burnley were without work. That devastation was wanton and unnecessary. It was caused by blind and doctrinaire policies. The people of Lancashire resolved that it should never happen again. They fought for policies of full employment, they voted for policies of full employment and, for 35 years, they got full employment. [Interruption.] From the end of the second world war until 1980, Lancashire had virtually full employment. Unemployment rarely went above 6 per cent. People could find work—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it extremely difficult to follow what he is saying because of all the background conversations. I hope that the House will give the hon. Gentleman the courtesy and attention that he deserves.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, unemployment rarely went above 6 per cent. and people were able to find work. New towns were created and prosperity was established, not least as a result of the successful policies of regional aid and assistance pioneered by a Labour Government, but broadly maintained by previous Conservative Administrations.
Since 1980, disaster has struck our county. Since then, 60,000 jobs have been lost across the county and one in four young people are without work. Many of them have never had a proper job in their lives. One half of the men in many Asian areas are without jobs, and hundreds of men and women over 50 might never work again.
The despair spreads across the county. From Morecambe and Lancaster in the north, to Blackpool and Fylde in the west, to Skelmersdale and Ormskirk in the south, to Preston, Leyland and Chorley in the centre, to Blackburn, Hyndburn, Darwen, Burnley, Nelson, Colne and the Rossendale valley to the east, the story has been the same—closure and cuts.
Many people remain in work, but there is not one family in the county of Lancashire which is not now affected by the scourge of unemployment. There is not a family which does not have a member without work or in which the parents, even in prosperous areas, are not worried sick about their children's future.
The Government have washed their hands of responsibility for all this and deliberately made a bad situation worse. Regional assistance for the county was all but abolished between 1975 and 1982. Housing investment has been halved during the past six years. It was £95 million in 1979 at today's prices and is now £39 million. Grants to Lancashire county council and district councils have been slashed. Lancashire county council estimates that, since 1980–81, £180 million has been cut from Government assistance to the county—equivalent to £130 per head of population.
In those circumstances, the work of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council and Labour-controlled district councils has shone like a beacon. They have stepped in to create jobs—1,200 new jobs have been created directly by the county council in the front line, not in bureaucracy. Lancashire Enterprises Limited has been established. It has protected and promoted 2,200 jobs, created 800 training opportunities and made a £300,000 profit for the ratepayers. Its cost per job created, at £4,000, is less than the Government pay to keep people on the dole.
The county has pioneered cheap travel for the elderly, improved rail and bus services, and opened 17 nursery schools and classes—and there are another 12 on the way. It has expanded the number of home helps and services to the elderly, especially in Blackpool, the Fylde and Morecambe areas—to which many people retire. It has done all that with one of the best financial records in the country.
In national terms, ratepayers in Labour shire counties pay 50p a week less than ratepayers in Conservative shires —£5.31 is paid each in week in Conservative shires and £4.83 is paid in Labour shires. In Lancashire, the record is even better. Average rate bills are £3.99 a week. No fewer than 33 counties have higher rate bills than Lancashire.
Despite Lancashire's excellent record, we are still spending £16.6 million less than the Government's assessment of the needs of the area, thanks to the target system. Because of that record, Labour's majority in Lancashire will increase on 2 May. But to meet the massive needs of the area, created by the reckless economic policies of the Conservatives, Lancashire needs assistance from central Government, not the hindrance that we have had from them in the last six years.
The Bill sets out a new framework for a real partnership between Whitehall, Westminster and the county to provide positive assistance to restore prosperity, jobs and services to the county. Clause 1 provides that within three months the Secretary of State for the Environment shall present a report to Parliament estimating the loss of rate support grant that has been suffered by the county in the last six years and the effect that that has had on business and domestic ratepayers. Most rate increases have occurred as a direct result of cuts in rate support grant.
Clause 2 provides for the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament on the social and economic needs of the county of Lancashire and on plans, drawn up in consultation with the county, as to what the Government propose to meet those social and economic needs.
Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State shall present proposals to Parliament to meet the pressing housing needs of Lancashire, which have got so much worse in the last six years. Clause 4 provides for extensive consultation with the districts and the county so that plans and proposals are not imposed on the county but are presented in collaboration with the districts.
Because private Members cannot move money Bills, the measure proposes no plans for increases in public expenditure. However, it is the first stage in a new partnership with the county. I hope that it will enjoy support from Conservative as well as Labour Members in the House.
Tory Members know that unemployment in the county of Lancashire would be even higher without the fine work of the county council. They know that many Conservative


business men have been knocking on the doors of Lancashire Enterprises Limited seeking help for their firms, which have been ravaged by the present Government. They know of the hundreds of jobs that have been created and of the damage that has been done to the county by the Government. I hope that they also know that if they fail to support the Bill, bearing in mind the hope for the county that it holds out, the people of Lancashire will never forgive them.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Hind: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to comment on what must be considered one of the most cynical abuses of the House that we have witnessed for a long time. The county council is facing elections on 2 May and it is not without significance—[Interruption.]—that, although this Bill could have been introduced on any day this Session, it has been introduced today, nine days before those elections.
As the only hon. Member whose constituency includes the name "Lancashire", I feel qualified to draw the attention of the House to some of the flaws in the Bill. All hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies — there are some on these Benches — want more resources spent on Lancashire as a whole — [Interruption.]—but we must see the whole of the national purse in the context of what the country can afford. We cannot ignore the interests of every other county.
I have no doubt that this measure will be followed by other cynical attempts at campaigning for the county council elections in the days to come, with similar Bills being brought, for example, on behalf of the counties of Avon, Kent and Northumberland. Such Bills will probably be brought only on behalf of counties where Opposition Members feel that they might have a chance of winning on 2 May. We shall not hear from Conservative-held shire counties where they do not stand a chance.
When we consider increasing the resources of local authorities, we must examine the way in which they spend their money. Have the authorities given good value for money? The record of Lancashire, to quote the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), stands out like a beacon; it has an appalling record in abuse and waste of public money. Lancashire Enterprises Limited has been referred to. It was set up by the Labour group on a supplementary rate of 18p about six weeks after Labour got into power, simply as a campaigning tool for the benefit of the Labour party.
Attached to that was Enterprise Associates Limited, a public relations consultancy. I am told that newspaper reporters were paid £15,000 a year and provided with a car to spread the message about what the Labour party was doing in Lancashire. This was nothing more than a publicity campaign for the Labour party in Lancashire at the ratepayers' expense. It is cynical and an abuse, but presumably the Labour party hopes that it will produce results. I am sure the ratepayers of Lancashire will not be convinced.
The rates in Lancashire have been increased because of Lancashire Enterprises Limited. In this electoral year they

may not have been increased as much as previously, because the Labour party knew that it was going to the polls. Those high rates since 1981 have done more damage to investment prospects in Lancashire than anything other than the recession itself.
The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about 1,200 jobs that were created. If the money taken by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council for high rates had been left in the hands of ordinary manufacturers and industrialists, not only would 1,200 jobs have been preserved but more jobs would have been created through the investment of that money. May I say on behalf of my constituents in Lancashire, West that, although in parts of Skelmersdale there is 30 per cent. unemployment, we are still waiting for Lancashire Enterprises Limited to create one job in my constituency?
Another abuse is that £15,000 was given by Lancashire to the miners' welfare fund. The council has just spent £150,000 on attacking the Government's Transport Bill. I have a letter here from the chief executive of Lancashire county council who says, in a nutshell, that the council totally opposes the Bill and is not taking any part in providing advice for Conservative Members of Parliament who are sitting on the Transport Bill Committee. Rather than spend a train fare to come to the Committee, the council has spent £150,000 of ratepayers' money cynically to campaign in Lancashire against the Conservative Government.
We have received through our letter boxes the Lancashire Clarion, produced by Enterprise Associates Limited; it is supposed to be a news sheet for Lancashire county council. I challenge anyone reading that news sheet to hunt the Conservative, or find any mention of Conservatives. It is nothing more than a publicity sheet for the Labour campaign in Lancashire.
I am sure my hon. Friends will join me in supporting the provision of more money for the counties at a favourable opportunity, but it has to be seen within the context of total public expenditure and what the country can afford. Hon. Members should bear in mind the cynical abuse by Lancashire county council when they decide what they will do at the end of the debate. I am sure that they will vote against the Bill for one reason only: that it is a cynical abuse of the House, electioneering and nothing more. I therefore beg the House to reject the motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 155.

Division No. 190]
[4·4 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashdown, Paddy
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Guy
Cartwright, John


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red 'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Blair, Anthony
Cohen, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Corbett, Robin


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Cowans, Harry






Craigen, J. M.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dormand, Jack
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Penhaligon, David


Forrester, John
Pike, Peter


Freud, Clement
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Redmond, M.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sedgemore, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Heffer, Eric S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howells, Geraint
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Snape, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Loyden, Edward
Torney, Tom


McDonald. Dr Oonagh
Wallace, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Weetch, Ken


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
and


Maxton, John
Mr. John Golding.


Maynard, Miss Joan





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cockeram, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Cope, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Critchley, Julian





Crouch, David
Mather, Carol


Dicks, Terry
Maude, Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Mellor, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Merchant, Piers


Eggar, Tim
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Emery, Sir Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evennett, David
Moore, John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Favell, Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forth, Eric
Nelson, Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Onslow, Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Portillo, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Powley, John


Gow, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gower, Sir Raymond
Price, Sir David


Greenway, Harry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gregory, Conal
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Grist, Ian
Renton, Tim


Grylls, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hannam, John
Rost, Peter


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayes, J.
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hayhoe, Barney
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heddle, John
Silvester, Fred


Hickmet, Richard
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Holt, Richard
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Squire, Robin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stanley, John


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knowles, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Lamont, Norman
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lang, Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lord, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David John
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Yeo, Tim


McQuarrie, Albert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Major, John



Malone, Gerald
Tellers for the Noes:


Maples, John
Mr. Robert Atkins and


Marland, Paul
Mr. Ken Hargreaves.

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

[SECOND PART]

Trade Unions (Ballots)

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that there is going to be trouble in the House in that certain Opposition Members are trying to deny the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), his customary seat. In view of that, and in an attempt to be helpful and constructive, would it not be a good idea if the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) vacated his seat and his expensive microphone so that the leader of the Social Democratic party could speak there? That would avoid the occurrence of any unseemly scenes in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): There is no point of order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be no point of order. What we have heard seems to have caused more trouble than it was suggested we might cure.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the only provision for securing a seat in the House is if hon. Members come in for prayers, having put in their prayer cards. That is what some of my hon. Friends have done in this case—as they always do. In view of the fact that this matter is about trade unions and ballots, we thought that the leader of the Social Democratic party should sit on the Tory Benches to deliver his speech.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see plenty of empty seats. I do not see any reason for any hon. Member to be unduly cramped. [Interruption.] Order. Perhaps the leader of the Social Democratic party will take one of the empty seats rather than occupy the Gangway.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an ex-heavyweight politician like the leader of the SDP to be sitting on the floor on my right-hand side and for the Whip of the SDP to be sitting down on my left-hand side? I have noticed that both of them have been throwing threatening glances at my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) because he is occupying the seat that they have their eye on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be sensible if hon. Gentlemen made best use of the seating that is available.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Would it be helpful to suggest that, as the leader of the SDP is trying to outflank the Conservative party from the right, he should be offered a seat in the far right-hand corner which is empty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the so-called helpful suggestions do not seem to be very helpful at all.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest in a purely neutral sense that the leader of the SDP, in view of his opinions on the political parties on both sides of the House, might take his seat up above the clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends. Dr. Owen.

Dr. David Owen: rose—

Mr. John Prescott: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must sit down.

Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would appear that the Leader of the SDP has decided to speak from this Dispatch Box in order to move the Motion. Such a proposal is not normally dealt with in this way in the House. I wonder whether you would rule that the official Opposition spokesman speaking in the debate has the right to present the Opposition's case from this Dispatch Box.

Mr. John Cartwright: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to a number of cases in which hon. Members have spoken from the Opposition Dispatch Box when they were not speaking on behalf of the official Opposition? I refer, for example, to an occasion on 4 August 1980 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and referred in his speech to the fact that he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He said:
In speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I am sticking to the long-standing tradition of the House under which any Privy Councillor may speak from the Dispatch Box." —[Official Report, 4 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 352.1
I refer also the occasion on 22 May 1984—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this stage, I do not think that it is necessary for the hon. Gentleman to go through that, because the question to which he is addressing himself has not been raised. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me whether it was in order that the official Opposition spokesman address the House from the Dispatch Box. Of course that is the case. But I do not know—and he has not yet raised with me the question — whether that excludes the right of any other right hon. or hon. Member to address the House from the Dispatch Box —[Interruption.] I know of no responsibility or authority that I have to prevent any hon. Member from so doing.

Dr. Owen: rose—

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to be called to speak who is not sitting in his or her place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to suggest that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is sitting in his place—it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will be patient a little longer, until we clear these points of order, we might have a more orderly start to the debate.

Mr. Sedgemore: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1959, under which you have a reserve power to call a psychiatrist to examine—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong day. Dr. Owen.

Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the SDP clearly thinks that he is the Leader of the Opposition. In my respectful submission, he should be submitted to the psychiatrist's couch because, if he is mad, he is not allowed to sit in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. We have an important debate before us. All this is taking time out of that debate.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), you seemed to imply that hon. Members can speak from wherever they like in the House, including from the Dispatch Box. Are you then saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all hon. Members can deliver their speeches from the Prime Minister's Dispatch Box if they so wish? If that is the case and all hon. Members proceeded to do so, I submit that there would be chaos in the House. Therefore, there is a long-established convention that hon. Members of the House do not speak from the Dispatch Box except those who by convention are allowed to do so—those on the Front Benches. As that is the convention of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it is your duty to uphold that convention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said earlier that I knew of no authority that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member addressing the House from the Dispatch Boxes, but of course the hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the long-standing conventions of the House. It is a universally recognised and observed convention that the Dispatch Boxes are used on the one hand for Ministers to address the House and on the other for the leaders and spokesmen of the official Opposition party to address the House. I can only ask the House to observe and sustain the convention, but I have no authority to prevent any hon. Member who decides that he will breach the convention.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: rose—

Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see the point of order, but can I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will be impossible for the Leader of the Social Democratic party to speak from behind the line if he speaks from the Dispatch Box without thrusting the Members who were already sitting on the Front Bench from their places. If right hon. and hon. Members are already occupying their places in front of the Dispatch Box and a right hon. Member comes to try to force them out of the way or speaks from beyond the red line, how can he be in order? It can hardly be in order for a right hon. Gentleman to push other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen out of their seats. It can hardly be in order to speak from beyond the red line.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a purely hypothetical matter.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not also the convention that right hon. and hon. Members should be allowed to speak in the Chamber from the Bench upon which they normally sit — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — and that there is a deliberate attempt by the bully boys and thugs of the Labour party, as we saw in the miners' dispute, to stop free speech in the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must resume their seats. We have debated the miners' dispute many times, but we are not going to have it re-run this afternoon.
The hon. Member has raised a useful and constructive point of order. If it is suggested that all will be well and tranquillity restored if the leader of the Social Democratic party was allowed to resume his usual seat below the Gangway, then I would address an appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who are occupying that Bench to allow him to do so. [Interruption.] It is only an appeal.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am temporarily occupying the seat of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, which is, incidentally, in the view of some people just another facet of the Conservative party. I am prepared to move out of this seat in order to allow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to address the House from here. I think that that is a very fair proposal.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A joke is a joke, but is there anything in the rule book that says that this loutish and vulgar display by the Labour party should be permitted to prevent free speech in this House?

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like you to advise me. When I came into the House at 2.30 pm to take prayers, there was a card on the Bench where my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is sitting containing the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Obviously, he managed to come in earlier and put down the card but could not get to the Chamber for 2.30 pm for prayers. Perhaps this incident has been sparked off by the right hon. Gentleman's inability to attend the House regularly. It is now 4.30 pm on a Tuesday afternoon, and all hon. Members know that the right hon. Gentleman attends the House for about half an hour on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and that normally he would have left by now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion that we are supposed to be discussing was, according to the Order Paper, tabled by the Liberal party and the SDP. We were recently told that another microphone had been introduced in the Chamber in order to facilitate the leader of the Liberal party who normally sits in the seat beneath it. As the leader of the SDP is now occupying a seat under the microphone which was provided recently at considerable


expense for the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, most reasonable people would see no reason why he should not speak from where he is sitting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter upon which I can rule. The House is doing itself no credit whatever by proceeding in this way. Hon. Members should realise that there is a very serious debate before us and that the time for it is being spent on largely bogus points of order. Hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.

Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in this House for many years and I believe that the attack made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) was unwarranted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is helping neither the House nor himself.

Mr. Robert Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties drew a place in the ballot, and that we are now seeing a lamentable attempt to destroy their right to free speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no question of ballots. The dispute revolves around the question whether a right hon. or hon. Member should have a particular place from which to speak. I can see many empty places in the House. If there is space, right hon. and hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.

Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the leader of the SDP is sitting, singularly appropriately, on top of the leader of the Liberal party, would it not be fitting to allow him to speak from the seat in which he has been quite comfortable for the past 10 minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is neither a point of order for me nor a serious approach to what is becoming a serious matter. The right hon. Member for Devonport should be allowed to—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want to know what your ruling is. Does it mean that any right hon. or hon. Member can speak from the Dispatch Boxes? If so, given the arrogance and political views of the leader of the SDP, would he not be far happier speaking from the Government's Dispatch Box?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling was that I knew of no power that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I have reminded hon. Members of the long-standing and deeply held conventions of the House and appealed to the House to uphold them. I have no power to impose them, as is being suggested.

Mr. Prescott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will recognise that a serious point is involved concerning the conventions surrounding where right hon. and hon. Members speak from—[Interruption.] The issue involves not freedom of speech but the place from which a right hon. or hon. Member speaks. That is the only point at issue. Questions have been raised about prayer cards on seats as well as

about the conventions. Am I to understand from your ruling that it would be entirely proper for any right hon. or hon. Member to speak from either Dispatch Box at any stage during a debate? I understand that you are saying that this convention of the House does not have to be recognised, that it may be taken into account but that right hon. and hon. Members can speak at any time from any part of the House. Is that the point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have said that I have no power to impose that convention. Questions of propriety are a different matter, and I have not said that it would be proper to act in that way. The question is whether I have any authority to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I remind hon. Members again of the conventions, and hope that they will be observed.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to pass into the record that there has been a sudden outbreak of religious fervour on the Benches in front of me. The truth has nothing to do with prayer cards. It is well known to hon. Members that, ever since my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) became leader of the SDP, he has occupied a place on this Front Bench and has always spoken from there. You may not have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we noticed that throughout the Division that Bench was deliberately occupied by a movable group of hon. Members to prevent him from taking his seat. What we are seeing is not the Militant Tendency but the yobbish tendency in this House. I believe that there are procedures and conventions in this House, and that one of them is that my right hon. Friend should be able to address the House from the Front Bench without there being a conspiracy to prevent him from doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me and that no right hon. or hon. Member has a seat in the Chamber as of right, other than is provided for in our Standing Orders by the prayer card procedure.

Mr. Guy Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is clearly in a difficult position, partly because you cannot rule upon the matter as it is one that involves convention. I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept a motion on this matter from me as to where the right hon. Member for Devonport should speak from.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the difficulty arises because of the determination of the leader of the SDP to disregard the long-standing convention. I have no power to prevent him from doing that. We should get on with the debate. Dr. Owen.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that it is the duty of any hon. Member who wants a particular seat in this House to make sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has heard me already deal with that point. I do not think that there is any need to go over it again. All these points of order, many of which are bogus, are only detracting from the fulfilment of our serious responsibilities and from the debate that we ought to have embarked upon quite some time ago.

Dr. David Owen: I beg to move, That this House calls upon the Government—

Mr. Roland Boyes: rose—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must address me from where he is standing. He must not move around the Chamber.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have this kind of nonsense. lion. Members must address the House and the Chair from the place where they rise.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. It seems to me that a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to disregard conventions this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman who now wishes to raise a point of order please address it to me from the place which he is now occupying?

Mr. Boyes: In view of the fact that we have been continuously harassed by Social Democratic Party members, did you notice that in order to get from the Front Bench and to speak from that Dispatch Box it was necessary for the leader of the Social Democrats physically to assault members of the Labour party? Did you further notice that the leader of the Social Democrats already had an established place?
You have just insisted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I raised a point of order I had to speak from the place in which I was standing and that I had no right to go to the Dispatch Box. Why is it all right for the leader of the Social Democratic party to leave the place where he was sitting? He is only a Back Bencher, the same as I am, so why is it all right for him to move but not for me to move?

Viscount Cranborne: rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I had better deal with one point of order at a time. The difference is that the hon. Gentleman started to address me and raised his point of order from the position which he at present occupies. The leader of the Social Democratic party started to address the House from the Dispatch Box and, to the best of my recollection, had not spoken earlier.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understood correctly, you gave a ruling a few moments ago that a Member must address the House from the place at which he is called. Will you confirm that when you called the leader of the Social Democratic party he was sitting in the second row below the Gangway, as we all saw? Should he not, therefore, in keeping with your ruling a moment ago, have to make his statement from that position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given my ruling and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now challenging it. That he must not do. I will read to the House the relevant passage from "Erskine May", which we take as our guide on these matters. We find on page 418, running over to page 419, the following:

Upon a Member inquiring whether a private Member was acting within the conventions of the House in speaking from:he ministerial despatch box, the Chair declined to intervene and the Member concerned continued his speech from that place.
It then goes on to say:
A Member should not move his place while speaking.
To the best of my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Social Democratic party did not commence his speech until he put his notes on the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), having raised a point of order, proceeded to move along the Gangway. It was on the basis of what is in "Erskine May" that I ruled as I did. I have ruled and I do not think that there is any need to go over that ground.

Viscount Cranborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members care to go along the corridor to another place, they will see an important debate being carried on by non-elected people in this Parliament. Any hon. Member who then returns to this more important Chamber will see that a debate on an important subject upon which many of us on this side of the House feel extremely strongly is being deliberately resisted in an undemocratic manner by democratically elected Members. [Interruption.] May I finish?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not, because quite clearly he is delivering a speech which is expressing his opinion. I do not question the strength of feeling or the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman holds his views, but the matters which he is raising are not matters for me.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear that the situation in the House at the moment is reaching an impasse, and it has to be resolved. It can be resolved on the basis of common sense if the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Social Democratic party is prepared to occupy another seat. Obviously he is not. Have you no powers at all, as a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, to make a ruling? It seems to me to be very strange that if you were the chairman of the Labour or Conservative party you would have such powers and could make a ruling, but that the chairman of the House of Commons—that is what the Speaker is—has no power to make a ruling. Surely the time has come for you to make a ruling to resolve this impasse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The task of Mr. Speaker and his Deputies is to interpret and apply the Standing Orders and to seek to ensure the observance of the courtesies and conventions of the House. It is not for me or any other occupant of the Chair to make the rules, except by way of decisions which create precedents. I think that it would be very unwise for me, in what is for me and for the House a somewhat unprecedented situation, to make an off-the-cuff ruling that might be binding on other occupants of the Chair and their successors and have far-reaching implications for the liberties of the House.
It might be sensible for us to have a cooling-off period and for the House to have an opportunity to reflect on the situation and the impasse into which it seems to have got itself.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed.

Dr. Owen: rose—

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not take any further points of order.

Dr. Owen: I beg to move—

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) must resume his seat. We have had enough points of order for one afternoon. We ought to get on with the debate.

Dr. Owen: I beg to move—

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any further points of order. We have had a good run. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will now allow the House to get on with its proper business, which is the motion set down for debate.

Dr. Owen: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Government immediately to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 to ensure that, unless absolutely impossible in a particular case, all strike ballots, political fund ballots and elections for trade union executive committees are held on the basis of full secret postal voting conducted by independent returning officers and scrutineers so as to minimise the risk of abuse.
This is an important issue, relating to the role of the trade union movement. First, it needs to be clearly established that in this country there are millions of trade unionists who belong not just to the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party, but to the nationalist parties and to the Ecology party. It would be a great mistake for this House to debate trade union matters and think that any single party had a pre-emptive right to speak for all trade unionists. Furthermore, I believe that it is in the interests of the trade union movement, of trade unionists and of the prosperity of this country for the trade union movement not to feel itself to be politically bound or institutionally linked to any political party.
It is a reflection of the inadequate financial support for political parties that the political situation is so polarised, and that because of long-standing financial links politics have come very close to the vested interests which financially support particular political parties. That is just as much a problem for the Conservative party, because of its links with big business and its funding by large companies, as it is for the Labour party. I believe that all of us wish that a better system could be devised.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Owen: I should prefer not to do so but instead to develop my argument.
We need to reflect on the fact that at the last general election only 39 per cent. of trade unionists voted for the Labour party and that 61 per cent. voted for the other political parties. Therefore, the Labour party can no longer claim to speak for the majority of trade unionists. For that

reason, I think that we would all agree with the views of the Secretary of State for Employment, who said during the Third Reading debate on the Trade Union Bill:
We believe that the law should protect the whole community—employers, employees, union members and nonunion members alike—from the abuse of industrial power."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 832.]
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman spoke for everybody when he used those words, but I do not believe that the Trade Union Act 1984 is fulfilling those expectations.
We have before us the sad situation which is facing the Transport and General Workers Union. Most people are glad that there is to be an emergency meeting of the union on Thursday next. We must hope that, as press statements appear to indicate, the request of the general secretary elect, Mr. Ron Todd, for another ballot is agreed to, but I have serious misgivings about such a ballot taking place under the existing procedures. It is not my job to conduct a witch hunt into the procedures of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I do not intend to go into those matters. They have been fairly well discussed and other hon. Members will no doubt refer to them.
Ever since the scandal that affected the Electrical Trades Union, as it then was—it is now the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union—the view held in this country is that trade union balloting arrangements leave a great deal to be desired. It is important to realise that before the Trade Union Act 1980 some of the major trade unions were prepared to make payments out of their own funds in order to establish democracy. They were prepared to pay for postal ballots.
The Secretary of State ought to make it clear that some of his statements in recent weeks about the way in which the old ETU scandal first broke are incorrect. As was stated by its general secretary:
The postal element in this union's balloting system prior to 1961 was very limited."
It was based upon branch returns. Mr. Eric Hammond, the general secretary, said yesterday:
"We do not wish to intrude into the TGWU's difficulties but we cannot allow the present burst of distortion to go on unchallenged. We regard our system as fiddleproof and we urged the Secretary of State to adopt it if he was intent on legislating. He failed to do so, and it is reprehensible that he and others who have ignored our advice should now misrepresent our position.
The 1961 procedure was not a quasi-postal ballot. The Secretary of State knows that well, and I urge him now to listen, as he did not listen in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading or to the House of Lords, to the criticisms that have come from a substantial body of opinion—not, perhaps, within, the House but outside the House—from shop stewards in union after union who warned him that workplace ballots were open to great abuse.
What happens if on Thursday the TGWU decides to hold a re-ballot? The new Act will not stop what happened. Part 1 does not come into force until October. Even if the re-ballot were not held before then, the Act does not cover non-voting general secretaries. Most general secretaries, including that of the TGWU, are nonvoting. We have all realised that that is a gap in the legisation.
Even if non-voting general secretaries were covered, the Act allows unions to have a workplace ballot. The system used for the 1984 TGWU general secretary ballot could be used again. The only changes would be that all ballot boxes, not just most, would have to be at the workplace. Some were at the branches. The boxes would


have to be open for longer in some cases. The count would have to be more secure. No doubt arrangements will be made to change the cardboard boxes and a few other issues, but the substantive issue would not change.
Since the Act was passed we have seen how the National Union of Mineworkers has changed its rules. Mr. Arthur Scargill has arranged for his casting vote on the NUM executive to be taken away. [Interruption.] I agree that that has not happened yet.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Dr. Owen: Mr. Scargill will not be covered by the Act, as I understand it. If I am incorrect, I withdraw that remark.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House. He said that the president of the NUM has arranged for his vote to be given away. That is inaccurate. He never had a vote. The chairman of the executive had a vote. Whether the present chairman of the national executive or the president will have a vote will be decided at the national conference. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct what he said. A national conference will decide on the new rules.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is a fair man. I said a "casting vote". As I understand it, the present chairman is Mr. Arthur Scargill. He uses his casting vote. The recommendation may not be followed, but it shows how the Act does not cover all circumstances.
I should like to consider the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union's election for the successor to David Basnett. It will be by branch block vote. A vote, for example, of 10 to 6 in favour of one candidate could cast thousands of votes for that candidate. The Act does not stop that, as the general secretary does not have a vote. The new general secretary, Brenda Dean—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.

Dr. Owen: —has just been elected by workplace ballot.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): Wrong again.

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt make it clear whether the GMBATU election is covered. I think he will find that it is not.
We then come to the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act, which covers union executive elections. It comes into force on 1 October 1985. Unions can choose workplace instead of postal ballots. The right hon. Gentleman had better realise that there is a good deal of anxiety on his back Benches about that issue. There is a general feeling that if he had listened a little more he would not find himself in the mess that he is in. The right hon. Gentleman did a fiddle. He knew that that point would cause a great deal of trouble and he made an arrangement with the trade unions, which he now regrets.

Mr. Richard Tracey: The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps being premature when he refers to my right hon. Friend's Back Benches. The relevant part of the Act does not come into force until 1 October this year. Most of us wish to see how it will work.

Dr. Owen: That is a possibility, but it is also possible to anticipate some of the problems that will arise. The first thing that we have to face is that even if we argue about the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act we must remember that 47 unions, with 8.5 million members eligible to vote, will have to vote on political funds between April 1985 and March 1986. That will be the largest number of union ballots to take place in one year. They will take place not just under union rules but, nominally, under an arrangement made in the House to provide for true democratic procedures. The ballots must be held by 31 March 1986.
The unions have a choice between postal and workplace ballots on political funds. Three unions only at the moment—I hope that it will be more—are expected to use full postal ballots on the political fund. They are the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.

Mr. Skinner: The National Union of Seamen.

Dr. Owen: I hope that that is the case. I had always understood that there was a strong case for workplace ballots for the NUS. It has often been quoted as a case for special arrangements. The NUS is a special union. Most people recognise that there must be some flexibility. I shall be delighted if it holds a postal ballot. There is likely to be a postal element in most of the other ballots, with 10 per cent. of the members in the categories of being on holiday, sick, retired or applying for a postal vote.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose—

Dr. Owen: Some unions will operate a semi-postal ballot system with ballot papers sent to the workplace for distribution and then returned by post by each member to head office or independent scrutineers. What is wrong with workplace and semi-postal ballots? Why has there been disquiet about them for many years? The points at which workplace ballots can be open to abuse are in the number of ballot papers claimed for distribution at each location, in the unsupervised distribution of ballot papers, in the return of ballot papers, in the improper use of discarded papers, which, in many cases are over 50 per cent. of those issued, and in undue influence exerted on the voter. The variety of the form of pressure is legend. The abuse can be in the local count and in the national return.
Semi-postal ballots usually involve the distribution of ballot papers at the workplace and the posting back of the papers to union head office or the independent scrutineers. They are usually only a variant on the workplace ballot.
Why is there a resistance to postal ballots? The 1980 Act—

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. There has already been fairly substantial Labour party disruption during the debate.
The House must ask why there is such resistance. In the past one could understand that postal ballots were a costly procedure. For some unions it was not easy. I, like many other people, decided that some of those things had to change. We lived through some of the results of unrepresentative trade union decisions. The Government


were right, under the 1980 Act, to make it possible to provide funding for democratic postal ballots, and I support that.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Dr. Owen: If the hon. Gentleman intends to make the obvious point that I did not vote for it, he is right. I voted against it, and I regret that. When we formed the SDP, we made it clear that we regretted it. We decided to back democracy in trade unions. We should like to have democracy in political parties and other organisations. Postal ballots, as the SDP knows, are expensive. We know that the Labour party will not trust its members to vote for its leader. We know that the Labour party will not trust the one-member, one-vote system,. We will not have lectures on democracy from the Labour party. [Interruption.] I have had those arguments. I went to the Labour party conference and urged it to adopt the one-member, one-vote system.

Mr. Canavan: If the right hon. Gentleman is so obsessed with the idea of secret ballots, why, when he set up the SDP, were he and all the other SDP MPs who defected from other political parties afraid to give their constituents the opportunity of an immediate secret ballot? The only one who did, Douglas-Mann, was thrown out on his neck.

Dr. Owen: It is clearly a constitutional issue. Once elected, a Member of Parliament is answerable to the House, not to the general management committee of the Labour party. He is elected to the House to speak for his constituents. When this issue was put the to constituents of Plymouth, Devonport, they well understood it, as did 7.75 million people who voted for the Liberal party/SDP, and of course the 3–5 million who voted for the SDP. It may stick in the gullet of Labour Members to realise that many of those people were trade unionists. Many of them want to see, as do the SDP and the Liberal party, a strong, democratic trade union movement in this country—

Mr. Hugh Dykes: So does the Conservative party.

Dr. Owen: If the Conservative party really means that, it will carefully consider making amendments to the legislation—and the sooner the better.
The Secretary of State appears to be taking the matter personally, as though we should not make any criticism. The legislation contains substantial achievements and he should not be ashamed of them. He knows that the Government changed their mind during the passage of the Bill. After all, the Paymaster General and chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was the Minister of State, Department of Employment, during the passage of the legislation, had the grace to say on Report:
I admitted to him in Committee that I began by believing that postal ballots were the best, and perhaps the only, way of electing the executive committee of a union. I must explain why I moved from that position."—[Official Report, 26 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 99.]
The hon. Gentleman must be regretting that he moved from that position. It was not until an amendment was carried in the House of Lords that we put back into the Bill any presumption of postal ballots, and that is still only in part 1.
The House must remember that that provision does not cover strike ballot procedures. Why is that important? It could be argued that in electing a general secretary there are many different views among the officials of the union. We know that this is true of the Transport and General Workers Union. A substantial body of people support Ron Todd, with an equally substantial body of officials and others supporting Mr. George Wright. There is a discipline within the union to ensure that there is no fiddling of the ballot—yet there have been serious allegations.
What about a strike ballot, when almost all the officials of a union want a strike? They will supervise the workplace ballot, and there is no provision for a postal ballot. They will have the temptation to take all the shortcuts involved in a workplace ballot.
More than 82 per cent. of the political fund goes effectively to support the Labour party.

Mr. Skinner: Members of Parliament are sponsored.

Dr. Owen: It is for individual Members of Parliament to decide whether they wish to be sponsored. I was never a sponsored Member of Parliament.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman had union money.

Dr. Owen: It is extremely difficult for members of the Labour party to examine the issues objectively, yet it would be in their interest to do so. Mr. Ron Todd appears to understand that if there is doubt about a ballot, there is doubt about the authority of the general secretary. Therefore, Ron Todd would not be in a position to carry credibility—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman had £10,000 over the years.

Dr. Owen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will never make such an allegation. If he would like to say that standing up, I would be grateful. I was never sponsored, and no money was given to me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.

Dr. Owen: I beg the Secretary of State to look at this matter seriously. All the officials in the unions believe that the political fund should be involved, and they supervise the massive elections. Those elections will not simply be under union rules which we can all disown. If we hear reports of incidents, such as those affecting the TGWU, we will all be involved. This House will be involved. The workplace ballot on the political fund to support the Labour party is, in effect, a straight question of a political levy—it is Labour's levy. We are being asked to accept that the supervision of workplace ballots for the levy and for strikes should be undertaken by full-time officials of the union at their place of work.
Whatever the Secretary of State may say about the onus of proof in part 1—the reading of counsel is that the wording leaves it open to any union which so wishes to use a workplace ballot and not a postal ballot—the onus is not on the union to hold a postal ballot. The Government and the Prime Minister have misled their supporters. I do not believe that they did so deliberately, but the fact is that under part 1 any union which so wishes can hold a workplace ballot. If that is then challenged to the Certification Officer by an individual member of the


union, it is possible under part 1 for the Certification Officer to reject the workplace procedures and to insist on a tougher procedure or a postal ballot.
The Secretary of State has been on radio and television and given the impression that under part 1 the onus of proof is on someone to show why he should not have a postal ballot. The reverse is the truth. The alliance wanted the onus of proof to be on those who wished not to have a postal ballot to show why that should be so. For those unions with special circumstances, we suggested that they went to the Certification Officer and asked for an exemption. That is the right way. Postal ballots should be the norm, and workplace ballots the exception.
It is not quite an accident that SOGAT '82 has been chosen to be the first trade union in relation to the political fund. It is not an accident that this union has been carrying out its procedures with hardly any examination in the press. If the SOGAT '82 ballot is to become the hallmark of ballots for the political fund over the next year, the stories that we have heard about the TGWU will run on throughout the year.

Mr. Golding: Where is the evidence?

Dr. Owen: We find the evidence if we examine SOGAT '82. Its official journal describes why its members should support the political fund. The Labour party is not mentioned on any page. It is well known that the only way that SOGAT "82 can get its members to support the political fund is to pretend that it has nothing to do with the Labour party; that the funds go nowhere near the Labour party.
Matters are even more serious than that. Members of SOGAT '82 are being asked to vote for a voice in Parliament. They are told that they will not be able effectively to carry out their union activities unless they have a political fund. It has been made clear time and time again that any normal trade union activity, including lobbying, can be provided for from normal funds. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that they do not need a political fund to campaign or to lobby.

Mr. Leighton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that SOGAT '82 has a very good voice in Parliament? Is he further aware that our union wants the unfettered right to campaign on anything that the right hon. Gentleman might call politics? It does not want to be dictated to by him or by anybody else. No other country in western Europe dictates to a union how it will spend its money. When we want advice from renegades and turncoats, we will ask for it.

Dr. Owen: That is diametrically opposite to what the Act states. It states that the members should decide fully, openly and democratically whether they wish to make contributions to the Labour party. If they decide to do so, openly and democratically—[Interruption.] The Act is a bit like the SOGAT Journal. It does not mention the Labour party, but 82 per cent. of the political fund goes to the Labour party, and everybody knows that. It is not for normal, traditional lobbying.
In case anybody is in doubt about what the SOGAT Journal says, I shall read it out. It says:
'We would like to say on behalf of our members...' If we lose our rule which allows unions to be active politically we could soon be banned from campaigning publicly on questions which affect our members. And it would be illegal to lobby Parliament!

The journal is entitled "Say yes to a voice". That will not lead to a fairly conducted ballot and everybody knows it. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State for Employment will be seen to be putting the veneer of respectability over this process. It is vital that we say no. These political fund ballots must be conducted democratically. They should be contracted in. If a political fund ballot is to take place, it should be postal and the cost should be borne by the country as an investment in democracy.
Any of us who advocate fair elections in trade unions will be traduced up and down the country and will be told that we are anti-union. We are not. It is part of the assumption of a monopoly of conscience that the Labour party believes that only it can speak for trade unions. Many hon. Members of all parties believe in the need for collective action and for unions and members to organise. They believe that there should be some special safeguards in the law, as the present legislation rightly gives trade unionists.
However, these hon. Members desire from trade unionists that if they are given special privileges and protection in the law, they should have within their procedures a fully open and democratic mechanism so that the commonsense judgment of the members can be carried out. We would like to see that more widespread. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to listen this time. They did not listen to the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and instead partially made an adjustment to the House of Lords amendment.
What has happened in the case of the Transport and General Workers Union is, I fear, the tip of a particularly ugly iceberg. It is giving too much temptation to any person with strong views in a trade union to ask him to supervise an election. We have not yet reached the stage where the Labour party, the Conservative party, or the alliance parties supervise the collection of the ballot boxes in a general election, or are involved in the counting of votes. The supervision of the ballot is completely separated from us as politicians, and rightly so. Supervision should be conducted independently, even if there is a workplace ballot, and even if we allow some unions to go ahead before the full operation of the 1984 Act. It is incumbent upon us to insist that there should be independent supervision at all stages of any workplace ballot. I urge the Secretary of State to think again.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy.
I took no exception in any personal sense to what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, but on an issue as important as this, he could have done the House the courtesy of being more careful about his facts. He was wrong about the position of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, about the position


of the general secretary of the GMBATU and about the powers of the certification officer in the example that he used. He was also wrong in the letter that he wrote to me, and I sought to set out his inaccuracies. This is an important subject, and the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to come better prepared and equipped to deal with the argument.
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was not wrong in referring, as he does in the motion—I had assumed that this was a mistake—to the need for postal ballots before all strikes and presumably before those to end strikes. If that is what he intended—he referred only briefly to it—this is the first time that it has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) sat through all the proceedings —Committee, Report, Third Reading and the debates on Lords amendments—and said nothing about it. Is this a new policy proposal or merely a mistake in the motion? If the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed his arguments on the merit of compulsory postal ballots before all disputes, he might find it difficult to rally the support for which he is looking.
We welcome this debate, not least because it is an opportunity to correct some of the gross inaccuracies that the right hon. Gentleman has perpetrated, not only in the House but outside. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not embarrassed to discuss the cause of trade union reform. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Waverney (Mr. Prior) here. He initiated the step-by-step approach that has been such a significant success. I look across at some of the remainder of the participants in the battle on "In Place of Strife" and of the battles on the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Any honest observer will recognise the significant difference in the successes of our step-by-step approach. It is improving the climate of industrial relations, and its measures are here to stay.
The right hon. Member for Devonport was candid enough to admit that he voted against the first step of the step-by-step approach. He does not, however, rush forward to say that, while he supports the use of public funds for postal balloting, he voted against my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney when he introduced that proposal.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I did not vote against it.

Mr. King: It comes as no surprise to find that different Members of the two alliance parties voted in different ways. The real surprise would be if they voted in the same Lobby at the same time. There have been some thoroughly unwelcome scenes in the House, but it is welcome to see the new development of such a good turnout from the alliance parties.
The right hon. Member for Devonport has chosen to lecture the Conservative party on the system of balloting for elections, secret ballots for union elections, a system of ballot before strikes and secret and periodic ballots for trade union funds. However, he would not have had the opportunity to comment on any of those items if we, as the Government, had not carried them through on to the statute book. We see this as a further development in our programme. We have tackled the abuse of the closed shop, have introduced financial support for postal ballots and

have outlawed secondary action. We have introduced secret ballots for the union elections to principal executive committees, for strike ballots and for political funds.
Many of our critics, some of them on the Opposition Benches, have said that these measures would never be used and that they would blow back in our face, but the record does not bear that out. The National Graphical Association may have second thoughts when it is £750,000 lighter because of its efforts towards intimidation and mayhem at the Stockport Messenger and have begun to realise that, in the end, the law will have to be observed.
The Transport and General Workers' Union learnt painfully and to its cost, at Austin Rover, that the car park meeting will no longer be tolerated and that the members must be consulted. The south Wales area of the NUM thought that it could black two hauliers with impunity. It found—it was another painful exercise—that unlawful actions will be punished and that the law must be observed. Most recently, in the Post Office at Mount Pleasant and even in the Civil Service, the requirement to consult the members, imposed through injunctions or through the serving of a writ, has ensured that disruption or strike action did not take place.
Our legislation seeks to give rights to union members, not to the Government. That has led to a major change of attitude. I cannot vouch for it, but according to a newspaper report, the TUC has referred to
the apparent wish of many members for ballots in any event, regardless of the provisions of the law".
That underlines the fact that we are right to give members rights, and easier access to remedies when those rights are obstructed.
Our determination has been to improve democracy in trade unions. Unions belong to their members. It is to the members that we must look and to whom the rights must be given. Many politicians jump up and down about ballot rigging and allegations of ballot rigging, but it is the members who are robbed and deprived of their rights by unfairness or injustice.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: Because of the exceptional circumstances, I owe it to the House to reply. I will give way in a moment.
The worst abuses in union practices took place either at branch meetings or in the car park voting procedures. I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute the fact that the Act will render both those forms of abuse illegal.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that I was the Liberal party's spokesman on employment while the legislation to which he has referred—apart from the Trade Union Act 1984 — was passing through the House? Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I and my Liberal colleagues consistently supported the Government in the passage of those Bills. The right hon. Gentleman's claim that the legislation is the achievement only of the Conservative Government is not based on fact. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned that the unions should belong to the members, why is he tonight denying those members the right to vote by post, so ensuring that the results would be unchallengeable?

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in order to carry through the legislation, we had to depend solely upon the support of the Liberal party, or that we


should equate the Liberal contribution with the effort of the Conservative party? I cannot readily accept those propositions.
We have been at pains to tackle the problems. I note, for instance, the reference to the need to get away from branch voting. The right hon. Member for Devonport knows a great deal about such problems. I believe that he is a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. The branch voting procedures of ASTMS may be among the most inadequate. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the president or the general secretary of the union. I understand that, at the last election for their president, some 400 branches of the union either failed to return a vote or returned a nil vote. Some 10,000 members voted in the election — about 2 per cent. of the membership. It is interesting to note for how long the right hon. Gentleman has belonged to that union.
I wish to deal with the innuendos that the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his speech. Immediately after talking about the failure of the operation of the 1984 Act, he referred to the situation in the TGWU. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the procedures for secret elections will not come into operation until 1 October. The right hon. Gentleman said that the TGWU situation will give the green light to many other people, showing them the opportunities for rigging. I have come to the opposite conclusion. To the union's credit, the complaints were raised under the existing procedures. A cook in a secondary school in my home city of Bristol found that someone had incorrectly stamped her membership card. She raised the matter, and further procedures led, I believe, to the dismissal of two trade union officials. The message is that we are giving the members rights that they are prepared to use.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. King: I do not wish at the moment to labour the point, but there is another message for us in the situation of the TGWU. Any senior trade union official standing for election and seeing the problems and difficulties that the TGWU is facing in connection with allegations of ballot rigging will not consider that he has been given a green light. The TGWU's problems will reinforce the determination of responsible unions to see that their procedures are properly carried out.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I must make progress, so that other hon. Members will have a chance to speak.
We outlawed branch voting and car park proceedings. Under the original provisions in the Bill, either workplace ballot or postal ballot requirements could meet the situation. Allegations have been made that I met Mr. Moss Evans and was completely persuaded by his arguments, and that as a consequence the Bill was weakened. In fact, the Bill, far from being weakened, was significantly strengthened.
There have been so many misleading allegations about the procedures in the Act—in some instances from ill-informed people—that I should like to make it clear what they involve. The Act lays down a whole series of new statutory requirements that will override existing

union procedures entirely. For the first time ever, it lays down statutory requirements about the frequency of elections, balloting arrangements, who can vote and who can stand. It lays down that elections must be secret, free from interference or constraint, that votes must be fairly and accurately counted, and that all those entitled to vote must be given an equal chance to do so at no direct cost to themselves.
Those are powerful new safeguards, and they are statutory. They do not depend on which union a member belongs to or what the union rule book happens to say. Any election that meets those standards will be a free arid fair election. From 1 October, anyone claiming that a union has failed to meet those standards will be able to apply to the independent certification officer for a declaration to that effect, or to the court, at no expense to himself.
That is one of the measures designed to help members with any problems connected with raising grievances. Conservative trade unionists attach great importance to the opportunity to be able to make representations.
We have added a new requirement that will pave the way for the opportunity for postal ballots on the widest possible basis. We have already imposed upon the unions a duty to compile and maintain a register of the names and proper addresses of their members. That duty was imposed upon the unions on Royal Assent. The registers must be completed by 1 October and kept up to date thereafter.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that such a register, like any other electoral register, will be open for inspection, so that all the members may be satisfied that it is in order?

Mr. King: It should be available to members of the union.
Any failure to comply with the requirements of the register will make the union open to the risk of being challenged by its members in the High Court or before the certification officer.
We have gone further than that, as we have given much greater emphasis to postal voting. Postal voting is the system most likely to be free from interference and intimidation. The motion refers to "full secret postal voting", and I should like to consider why others think that an exception is justified. I should also like to tell the right hon. Member for Devonport why I have said that sections 2 and 3 of the 1984 Act introduce the most powerful presumption in favour of postal ballots.
A union that is considering holding a workplace ballot must meet all the existing requirements for free and fair postal elections, meet additional ones concerning the supply of ballot papers and giving electors a convenient opportunity to vote, and satisfy itself in advance of the ballot that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that any of the Act's electoral safeguards will be breached. A union member can go to the certification officer in advance of the ballot and get his support with a view to getting the High Court to act. That was the error of the right hon. Member for Devonport, because the certification officer has no power in this regard. If there is malpractice or intimidation, the ballot is put at risk.
If a union is not challenged by its members before an election, but the conduct of that election is found to have fallen short of the legislation's requirements, the High Court has a duty to order a re-run of the election to be conducted by a full postal ballot unless that is plainly


inappropriate. A few unions seem not to have taken those provisions fully on board as they are making fairly relaxed comments about them. It would be wise for union leaders to reflect on those provisions and the events of the past few months.
This is not an argument about mandatory full postal ballots. On 1 December 1983, the hon. Member for Stockton, South said:
We strongly favour the principle of one member, one vote and believe that postal ballots should be the norm. That is as far as we go. We do not say that it should be laid down as the only way of organising ballots within unions."—[Official Report, Standing Commitee E, 1 December 1983; c. 135.]
On 25 April 1984, the hon. Member said:
Postal ballots could not be adopted in every instance."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 844.]
On 24 July 1984, the hon. Member said:
There is a need also for some flexibility in the operation of postal ballots. We accept that it is wrong that postal ballots should be imposed on every union."—[Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 864.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) also accepts that there are cases when exceptions might have to be made. It is accepted that there is a case for postal ballots. The question is, therefore, under what terms and arrangements they are to be permitted. I am anxious to ensure the greatest possible democracy and to establish higher standards of democracy in trade unions where they have been lacking. I do not include all trade unions in that criticism. Two criteria must be met. We must ensure fair and secret elections, which are free from intimidation and malpractice, and we cannot walk away from the problem of encouraging every member to vote, because turnout matters in a democracy.
If properly organised, workplace ballots tend to attract a much higher percentage ballot. The classic illustration of that is the National Union of Mineworkers. There was an 11 per cent. turnout in a fully postal ballot in the furniture trade union. For those who believe that workplace ballots can always be rigged by a union leadership, we should remember that Mr. Scargill was defeated twice in such ballots. He had polls of 87 and 93 per cent. and lost both ballots. Most recently he tried to persuade his members to vote for the 50p levy, which proposal was also defeated by a workplace ballot.
I have already said that the postal ballot can be the best solution if the avoidance of intimidation and malpractice is the overriding consideration. I accept that there must be postal ballots in some circumstances, because of the activities of the union leaders. There has been some interesting research on the problems of organising a postal ballot and getting the electoral roll in order. Right hon. and hon. Members know about the problems associated with parliamentary elections. I understand from the research that, in a fully postal ballot conducted by the AUEW, which has confirmed these findings, 200,000 members never received a vote and 20,000 received a vote to which they were not entitled. The Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union has tried hard to establish the best possible postal ballot system, but there are still problems. Right hon. and hon. Members know that people who come to our constituencies after October are not able to vote for us for 15 months — [HoN. MEMBERS: "After March."] I am grateful. I hope that I am better on union law than perhaps I am on electoral law. Democracy must be about giving the maximum number of

people the maximum opportunity to vote. However, they must be able to vote free from intimidation and malpractice in a secret ballot. Our legislation ensures that they have the best possible chance to do that.
The argument between us is whether it is better to give the power of determination of when there should be workplace ballots to a public officer—the certification officer—or to members, who should be given access to the courts. I have chosen the latter course. Our approach will succeed because it works with the grain of all union members. We are giving them rights, not imposing obligations on them. The defence of freedom and the avoidance of malpractice and intimidation, which all responsible right hon. and hon. Members deplore, will lie with the vigilance of union members. But it is our duty to see that they have proper rights and proper access to remedy. Because, in that spirit, our legislation embarks most effectively on that course, I commend the amendment to the House.

6 pm

Mr. John Prescott: I had better get to the Dispatch Box quickly, while I have the opportunity to do so.
The amendment reflects the Government's anti-trade union attitude, and their legislation applying to unions must be seen in the light of their overall policy.
SDP opportunism is reflected in the motion, which was not particularly ably moved by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[Interruption.] On the facts, the right hon. Gentleman did not make a good case. As he was motivated to initiate this subject at the first opportunity he had from the alliance point of view, he should have mugged up on the facts, particularly in relation to the unions to which he referred.
From the comments made in the debate, it would appear that neither side believes that the universality of the ballot is in issue. There are clearly problems in the trade union movement about how ballots should be applied. That is why flexibility and choice are allowed. Flexibility is necessary. It appears in the legislation and it even appears in the alliance motion.
We can assume, therefore, that the universality of the ballot is not in issue and that we are essentially concerned with proper practices in the development of ballots. We are also concerned with the democratic participation of union members and the importance of achieving the maximum participation in ballots.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that no hon. Member on the Labour Opposition Benches would have any truck with the interference of, or irregularities in, ballots, and the same goes for the proper democratic expression by trade union members on whatever issue may be in question. There need be no doubt or division on that aspect of the matter.
I speak as having been a seaman with 10 years' experience in the shipping industry. I recall taking part in debates in 1972 with the present Secretary of State, particularly on legislation about the closed shop. Exemptions were then made for seafarers because of the difficulties they face in relation to ballots. The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) featured in the debates at that time. Clearly, therefore, my experience of the subject is bound to influence my attitude to the subjects of ballots and participation.
For 30 years I have been active in a trade union as an official and as an ordinary member. I have taken part in ballots — some postal— for executive councils, AGMs and delegates. Those ballots have occurred at the workplace, on sites, on ships, at branches, in executive councils and, for unofficial and official strikes, on sites. I can claim, therefore, to have participated in every type of ballot known to the trade union movement, including those covered by the Electoral Reform Society.
I learnt from those experiences. I am convinced of the role that ballots can play. My trade union actively ballots, in most cases by way of postal ballot, on matters concerning strikes, the election of officials, the political fund — the political fund will now be governed by legislation—and various other matters. In other words, ballots are an integral part of my union.
I recall one case when I was led to complain about a ballot irregularity. I complained through the normal procedures within the trade union movement and, as a result, the rules applying to ballots were tightened up. The ballot in question, with which I was closely concerned, was a postal ballot. The irregularity occurred because the postal ballot papers were sent to a ship which was due to remain in port at Southampton for only 24 hours. All the postal ballot papers were sent to the ship and we had a particularly active member who, in an effort to increase participation, collected all the envelopes and voted as he thought fit for members who had not received their voting papers.
I regarded that as a gross irregularity, which it clearly was, and, when I laid my views before the union and its executive, the procedures were changed. Indeed, the change was such that every member then had to sign for his or her ballot paper, to be sure of receiving it. The trouble was that, because everyone had to sign, so few participated in the ballot that a mockery was made of the vote.
There were bound to be difficulties because seamen cannot always be contacted. Indeed, the population of seafarers, so to speak, changes to the extent of 20 per cent. every year. Not only do their home addresses change, but seafarers may be out of the country for as long as a year or two years. That is the scale of the difficulty that my union has in dealing with ballots.
Every union, on receiving evidence of irregularity, will act. We do not need a commission or legislation to make it possible for people to take legal action. Many cases have arisen in the courts as a result of people pursuing breaches of union rules. Often the common law is invoked in that respect. In other words, the right of ordinary union members to pursue cases in court has always been available.
The interference directly in a ballot about which I am talking is improper. The sort of interference, as exemplified by Bernard Levin's article in The Times, however, is considered to be proper. He named candidates whom he thought should be elected in a ballot held by their union. He used the fact of his access to a national newspaper to influence a ballot. Apparently it is considered democratic for him to do that, even though he is not a member of the union concerned. He believes strongly, it seems, that moderates should be elected, and he uses The Times for that purpose.
I hope I have said enough to show that I need no lectures from alliance or Conservative Members about trade union

ballots and their importance. I have explained that I am well aware of the way in which ballots operate, and I have described my involvement in them.
In my notes, when preparing this speech, I wrote, "SDP evidence," and left a gap which I thought I could fill in when listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport. In the event, he did not produce a scrap of evidence to justify any of his assertions. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the various points that the right hon. Gentleman made, including that applying to SOGAT.
When speaking of the TGWU, the right hon. Member for Devonport said that he was prepared to leave the issue as it applied to that union. I wish that he had decided earlier not to proceed with that. He was prepared to make all sorts of scurrilous charges on the basis of what he said he had heard from individual members who were making allegations about ballots.
The Secretary of State was right to point out that that union acted, without recourse to legislation, firmly in the case of Bristol and dismissed two officials. [Interruption.] Whether or not my agreement with the Secretary of State is an alliance in truth I do not know, but the facts are clear on the issue.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman must know that I, as a member of the TGWU, wrote to Moss Evans and Norman Willis long before the wounding of the TGWU had continued for this length of time. In that letter I suggested, being aware of what was likely to happen— because of the way in which such matters tend to develop—that the best course would be for the TUC, as an independent and non-hostile body, to carry out an inquiry into what was happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been better if that course had been agreed to some weeks ago?

Mr. Prescott: Whether or not the hon. Gentleman feels that the response to his letter was undertaken quickly enough is another matter. The fact remains that the union and the candidates in that election made their position absolutely clear. The union and Mr. B. Evans, have been calling for evidence all along. I should have thought that this debate provided a good opportunity for that evidence to be produced. Instead, we have had only innuendo. We have not been given information of any kind to enable us to judge why the right hon. Member for Devonport believes that everything should be done by way of postal ballot.
The position seems clear enough. The TGWU executive will meet and deal with the matter. It has a history of dealing correctly with such complaints, and a similar history runs right through the trade union movement. If the union does not act, there will then be cause for concern. Either way, those who make allegations must justify what they say.
In that context, we must consider some of the statements that have been made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I have read his party's press releases on this subject. The hon. Gentleman makes various scurrilous remarks in press handouts and then, when he writes to the certification officer, produces no evidence whatever. He can only refer to what some trade union members have told him they think is going on. A campaign based on such a lack of evidence reflects the opportunism which we have come to expect from the alliance.

Mr. Michael Hancock: Following the letter that I sent to the certification officer and Mr. Willis of the TUC, there was ample evidence for the TUC to step in and authorise a ballot to take place and for the certification officer to investigate the claims contained in the letter that was sent to him. In other words, ample evidence was provided for the investigation to take place.

Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Member is the SDP spokesman on industrial relations, if he believes that is the TUC's role and if he has been advising his right hon. Friend, it is no wonder his right hon. Friend made a mess of the facts. My point was that the letter sent to the certification officer had no evidence in it. I have a copy here. No evidence was given apart from conversations that the hon. Gentleman had with members of a trade union, whose support he presumably canvassed when he was a Labour party member, without one murmur about whether it was legitimate to receive such support. It is only since these people became members of the alliance that they are concerned about what they regard as matters of democracy. Therefore, this is an act of opportunism by the SDP.
If we want further evidence, we find that they voted for the Second Reading of the Trade Union Act 1984 and then abstained on Third Reading. When I looked through the debates on that legislation, I found that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) moved an amendment to a House of Lords amendment proposing that there should be a postal ballot for the political fund but then, at approximately 12.30 am, he said:
In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment." — [Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 492.]
The right hon. Member for Devonport was not even in attendance when there were votes. On that occasion the SDP did not pursue the amendment, which it thinks is so important, to require a postal ballot on the political fund. Why did the SDP not pursue the matter then? I am perhaps cynical. Shortly after that there was a statement by Shirley Williams, about which there was much publicity in the press, offering a deal to the unions—that if they gave some money to the SDP, it would not lead a campaign against a ballot on the political fund.
I do not know what happened, but now we have this motion before the House. Perhaps the SDP thought that it might get involved in bargaining and would have a case for saying, "Give us some of the money, Barney." When one considers the arguments and the statements that have been made, the matter does not seem very profitable for the SDP.
If the SDP's strong view on abuse of such political funds was reflected in the motion—companies giving money to political parties without balloting their shareholders—I might understand the motion. I think companies give donations to the SDP. It received £8,300 last year, and I think £5,000 of that was from the Norwich Union. The right hon. Member for Devonport is nipping round to companies, having lunch, and asking for money. If he thinks it is wrong to have political funds, it would be useful to legislate for postal ballots of company shareholders before companies decide that money should be made available to political parties. If the right hon. Member is nodding his head in agreement, why is he receiving money from companies when he does not know

whether the shareholders agree that the money should be given to the party? I do not think that things like that worry the right hon. Gentleman. So long as he is getting the cash, so long as he is making a political point and so long as he can get more votes in the process, that is all he is concerned about.
When one considers that that kind of money is given to the SDP it reminds us of the point that was made earlier about SOGAT. Of course, the SDP expressed its view about the SOGAT ballot. It bought space in The Sun. I have a copy here. It placed an advertisement, costing £6,000, to lead an attack on SOGAT. It had received £5,000 from the Norwich Union. Therefore, one could say that that money from the Norwich Union helped to pay for the advertisement to have a go at SOGAT. It was a scurrilous advertisement, seeking to intervene in the election going on in that union. If I may be more cynical, perhaps placing it in The Sun was looking for a bit of aggro with the printers. It might have been seen as a good investment if there had been opposition to printing the advertisement. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the miners' strike, it might have been a good investment. That may have influenced the attitude of the SDP.
The SDP's concern seems to be mainly about political ballots. As we know, the strike ballot does not come into force until October. The right hon. Member for Devonport addressed himself only to the political fund ballot. I draw to his attention the fact that there is a dispute in Devonport at present. As I understand it, the men walked out without a ballot. Of course, the Government are closing down the yard, so one can understand the lads reacting about that. Did the right hon. Member demand a postal ballot before they came out?
I thought I had better read the intellectual newspapers in that area, so I scoured through the Western Evening Herald for comments. All I could find was that the right hon. Member had said:
Though anger and frustration may lead to protest today, by next week we must develop a constructive strategy for fighting back with alternative proposals.
That is quite proper. That is what a Member of Parliament should be doing. But he did not say that the men should get back and have a ballot. He did not say that what they had done was illegal and that he had supported the 1984 legislation which laid down that they should have a ballot before taking industrial action. That was another act of opportunism by the right hon. Member, in line with accepting trade union money and trade union nominations, all of which he did in his earlier career but which he now rejects as undemocratic.
I come to the Government's case.

Mr. Golding: Before my hon. Friend does that, will he deal with the point on campaigning made by the leader of the SDP? Is it not true that if the main purpose of any literature used in a lobby is held to be to further the interests of any party or candidate, it can only be financed from the political fund? If there were no political fund, it would be illegal. We are telling members that they have to vote yes in the ballot so as to keep the unfettered right to campaign.

Mr. Prescott: That is a very sound point. It was the concern of the SDP when it put that advertisement in the newspaper that the question was not about whether people voted for the Labour party. That was another mistake by


the right hon. Member for Devonport. The question concerns whether a union has political objectives and uses its funds for those objectives. That question is determined by the certification officer and, as I understand it, by Parliament. It is determined by law and is carried out under the law. The question is not whether the money is given to the Labour party, the SDP or the Tories, but whether funds are used for political objects. That is the question that has been put to union members.
In regard to the Government's case, most of the conditions for ballots are determined by the Government. They set up the certification officer procedure. In some cases they pose the question. All these matters are determined by legislation, so in many ways this is direct intervention in trade unions which are voluntary bodies. No other voluntary body is faced with legislation like this.
It may be the Government's case that trade unions are different and have to be treated differently. I believe that the Government see the trade unions as different. They are a target to be dealt with. Therefore, a case can be made that the Government are anti-trade unions. The Secretary of State claims that his policy is different in that it is step by step. The objectives are no different from those of other Tory legislation in the past, but the Government are achieving their aims by stealth with a little assistance from the mass unemployment that they have brought about with their policies.
The Government's policy is to discipline the trade union movement. What else would one do with the "enemy within"? Is not that how the Prime Minister sees the trade unions? They have to be disciplined; they have to be made into friends; one needs legislation to bring them into order. The Government's language is entirely anti-trade union. Their legislation has been designed to cocoon the trade unions in court actions, where they are sued for damages and costs. Those are academically different from fines, but they are heavy on the funds. The legislation is designed to achieve a fundamental shift in power in the workplace. It is designed to attack the trade unions, impose legal controls on them and enforce the Government's ideas about ballots and how they will be conducted.
Therefore, the Government are not motivated by concern for good industrial relations. The idea is to strengthen management. We often hear that it is the right of management to manage. The Government want to influence the power structure in the place of work. It is one step towards weakening the trade union movement before they implement the rest of their policy, which is more unemployment, lower wages, reduced benefits, the reform of the welfare state and, indeed, the reduction of statutory employment rights.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: I must get on with my speech. The Government's attitude is influenced by those facts. We said that in the debates on the legislation although I did not attend them and had to read the reports. Since then, the same charge can be made against the Government. There have been further announcements about the reduction of employment benefits. There has been the abolition of the fair wage clause, which led to a 12-month strike at Barking, where the women faced lower wages and a reduction in their working week. It is proposed that the

wages councils should be abolished. The Government now talk of lowering the costs of industry by attacking maternity benefits, equal opportunities, and so on. All those things have been spelt out by the Government.
The one thing that brought home to me the Government's attitude was the press statement of 17 April on unfair dismissals. Now one needs to work at an establishment for more than two years to be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It is difficult to understand why the Government want to pursue that if they are not simply to be seen as vindictive. When I consider how many people are involved, I believe that the unfair dismissal proposal is, once again, a way of improving the strength of the manager at the place of work, and reducing the rights of workers to appeal against an injustice.
In support of that I refer to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Waveney in a Cabinet document of 17 July 1981. He was opposed to the suggestions, and he said that only 7 per cent. of all dismissals actually went to the industrial tribunals. In that document, he said to his Cabinet colleagues:
My conclusion, therefore, is that there is insufficient justification to amend employment legislation further in favour of employers. Moreover, I believe that any attempt to do so would alienate large sections of the working population trade unionists and others and would therefore be politically damaging to the Government.
Now the right hon. Member for Waveney has been removed from the Cabinet, so there is action to reduce many employment benefits. That can be seen particularly in the Government's approach to unfair dismissal.
The same two-year period will not apply to the man who might join a union with a closed shop. He might join it today, but go to the other side of the world and decide that he no longer wants to be a trade unionist. He has an action for damages against the union if he refuses to remain in the closed shop—he is a sort of bounty hunter for the money. The same two-year period does not apply in that case. That can happen from day one. That illustrates the Government's approach to trade union legislation. That is why many feel—

Mr. Gale: I did not agree with much that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said today, but he did say that trade unionism was not the prerogative of any one political party, which is absolutely right. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that at the last election an assessed 5 million trade unionists voted for the Conservative party, that they are very well represented by the Conservative trade union movement, and that movement fully endorses the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?

Mr. Prescott: I shall not go into those arguments. I do not deny the right of any politician to make the case one way or the other. I am simply saying that the people who are arguing against the trade union legislation are making those points to me. I am arguing that the Government are anti-trade union in their legislation. They are continuing that approach by bringing in such measures.
The Government say, "Look what our legislation did for British Leyland." But there was a strike. It is interesting to note that Jaguar at Coventry did not choose to use the courts or any form of intimidation, and settled a similar matter quickly. The matter dragged on in British Leyland for several days, but it was settled quickly at Jaguar.
Let me take the more recent case of the Post Office. Management took unilateral action with which the union and its members disagreed. Eventually they came out on strike, but the matter was settled quickly. We believe that as a result of the legislation there will be more unofficial quick strikes, such as we used to see in the 1960s. That is the way to bring management to its senses without recourse to the courts. Under the Government's legislation, the individual cannot be sued. Only the union can be sued. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
In their amendment, the Government talk of their concern for greater democracy. I was reminded of that when I read in The Guardian today of the fifth suicide at Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham. There was no ballot of members. They were not asked whether they wanted a trade union. The Government imposed their draconian power and used an Order in Council, which did not even have to be debated in the House. They denied those people the right to belong to a trade union. They were not asked whether they wanted a ballot. That was denied to them. All that they were offered was a £1,000 bribe to give up their trade union rights.
At the moment the other place is dealing with legislation that seeks to abolish democracy in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. Some time ago the other place was asked to consider passing a law to abolish elections when there was no Bill saying what would take their place. Therefore, how can the Secretary of State talk about democracy in these matters? There is no ballot for the people to enable them to decide whether they wish to keep those local authority structures. All the polls suggest that they want to keep them. The Secretary of State also talks about greater participation at the place of work. Why are we the only country in Europe that is refusing to implement the Vredeling recommendation that there should be more information for working people about their employment conditions?
At the same time, the Under-Secretary talks about the political godfathers in the trade unions giving money to the Labour party, but he does not comment on the money that has been given to the Tory party by companies. Some £3.5 million was given last year. The hon. Gentleman does not consider any of those companies to be godfathers. That is the sort of double-talk that we have come to expect from the Government, especially when it was the non-elected chairman of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who implemented the legislation.
We believe that the Government's legislation is an attempt to take us back to the old master-servant relationship. Labour Members believe, as we did in past legislation, in strengthening workplace participation, strengthening collective bargaining within the workplace, and bringing about greater industrial democracy and participation and harmony and co-operation in the workplace.
I want to make this clear to the Secretary of State, because he seemed to get a bit upset about it last time. I endorse the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) at Question Time on 2 April, that the next Labour Government will repeal Tory anti-trade union legislation and put in its place a new employment protection Act, which we are at present

discussing with the trade union movement, emphasising our belief in co-operation rather than in confrontation for all those at work. There will be many more at work when a Labour Government are returned at the next election.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I wish to make a brief intervention. I do so as a member for some years of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and an office holder in my local branch, and one who has tried to serve on the so-called parliamentary committee of ASTMS, without any success, because it will not allow anyone on it who is not a member of the Labour party.
Secondly, I speak from the privileged position of being national president of Conservative Trade Unionists, an organisation representing a large number of members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said earlier. As a matter of information, we would probably represent the largest block vote at the Trades Union Congress if we chose to exercise it at all, which of course we would not like to do. We have a substantial following. All the officers are elected legitimately within the context of the rules of Conservative Trade Unionists, and there is no reflection upon us of any of the activities that have been observed recently in the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions.
I agree with one point that was made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He criticised the official Opposition for suggesting that they had the inalienable right to represent trade unionists and trade unionism in the parliamentary debate, and particularly in the House. We all know that that is not the case. The majority of trade unionists at the last election, and in the election before that, voted Conservative rather than for the right hon. Gentleman's party. In those circumstances, he cannot gainsay the facts as presented, whether or not he likes them. The facts are that we can speak with as much authority on trade unionism as he can.
The two points that I wish to make are brief. First, the misconceptions represented by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport have, I think, been dealt with extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It would waste time if I were to go over them in detail. However, they bear repeating in one context only, in that the four safeguards in the Act need emphasising time and again. They are, briefly: a .new right for members to complain to the certification officer about the arrangements for union elections before as well as after the poll, a new duty on the certification officer to investigate the complaint at no expense to the complainant.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has already said that.

Mr. Atkins: I emphasise it again because certain people who are not a million miles away appear not to have recognised what is involved.
Next, there is a new requirement that, when a court orders an election to be re-run, it will normally be done by post. Finally, there is a new duty on all unions to compile an up-to-date register of their members' names and addresses so that postal votes can be held. Let us therefore be clear about the four safeguards in the Act.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has, I think, just lost his standing at the next election as


a result of the statements that he has made, which have been confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He has said that he will repeal all the trade union legislation passed by the Conservative party. He is referring to legislation which, if he talks to the trade unionists whom he is supposed to represent, he will find is popular with them, whether in my constituency or in any other, and he knows that that is the truth. That is the kind of approach that will lose him and his party the next election, and he had better recognise it here and now.
It is clear that the Labour party, as usual, has been nobbled by the trade unionists to take a stance which conflicts entirely with what ordinary trade union members believe in in their various trade unions. We observed the other day that at one moment the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU, and then somebody got on the telephone to him and said, "Look, this is not quite on, old boy," so he changed his view, and he is no longer in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU.
As I said earlier, we have observed the hon. Member for St. Helens, North being supported by that man of principle, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, perhaps seeing the way the wind is blowing, has decided that he is now in favour of a new social contract, which means that again trade unionists have been on the telephone to him making it clear where he must stand in the context of the Labour party.
Anybody who appreciates what is involved in this issue knows that the majority of people who are members of trade unions understand only too well that changes need to be made. Where we differ from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport and his party is that we do not believe that the postal vote system as he enunciates it is the answer. There is a real possibility that the necessary organisation to operate that system would become the sort of quango which the extreme Left within the unions could choose to argue against more easily than it could the views of the members of trade unions which ought to carry more weight.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said, we believe that we should give this legislation a chance. The legislation of 1980, 1982 and 1984 has proved that legislation can be put on the books to cope with some of the difficulties and problems, and, above all, with handing back the trade unions to the members who ought to be participating.
In those circumstances, I believe that the motion of the SDP and the alliance is wrong. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear why we believe that we are right to adopt the path that we have adopted up to now and will continue to adopt. The statement of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, supported by all the Johnnies-come-lately in the Labour party, will be a contribution to the Labour party losing the election, and it will not be helped by the antics of the alliance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will wish to know that the wind-up speeches are expected to begin at a quarter to 7, so time is now very limited.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I should first like to make the point that, if I live long enough, in three years I shall get a 50-year badge in my trade union. I think

that I can speak with some experience of trade unionism at many levels, as an ordinary member, a shop steward and a district committee member, and as having once fought the assistant general secretaryship of my union and almost winning it when I did not want to—but these things happen.
I wish to make one point clear. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) suggested that the Government's legislation would give the unions back to their members. As far as I am concerned, the trade unions have always belonged to their members. The Secretary of State made some reference to car parks or suchlike in relation to voting in branches. I have to explain to the Secretary of State that each union has its own different methods of voting. The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers always voted at a branch, and I will tell the House how we did it. We voted at the branch meeting. There were two tellers and the chairman recorded the vote on the sheet. It was, of course, an individual vote for each person who was standing, so that one received 25 votes and another 50 votes, and that was recorded. At the end of that part of the meeting, the chairman read it back. Therefore, it was on the sheet, read back, recorded in the minutes and sent to the national executive. At the end, we received a booklet which recorded every branch vote for every individual member—the fairest method of voting that I know in the trade union movement because checks took place at every level. I never knew anything different from that in my trade union.
With regard to voting in relation to strikes, I will give a concrete example of workers who did not have a ballot, but who took an action which I think was one of the greatest actions of solidarity that I can remember. The Canadian seamen came into the port of Liverpool and they walked off their ship on the instructions of their union in Canada. A group of dockers were instructed to work the ship, refused to do so and were suspended. Within three hours, every dock worker in the port of Liverpool and Birkenhead was out on strike and remained on strike while that ship was tied up. It lasted six weeks. They did not get a penny. It was not for themselves; in my view it was purely an act of unselfish solidarity, the likes of which, incidentally, one does not often see. It was absolutely magnificent. I think that there were a few blue union members around at the time, but in the main they were members of the TGWU.
It is nonsense to say that there is no democracy in the trade union movement. As we all know, fiddles sometimes take place within every organisation. Can any hon. Member say that they do not take place within the Conservative party? I do not know how many votes take place at local level—[Interruption.] I understand that there are not any votes. Of course there cannot be any fiddles if people cannot vote. It is as simple as that.
But from time to time, something will go wrong over ballots in any organisation and there will be arguments about it. That is the law of nature. It happens. But it does not mean that the Government must interfere in that organisation's internal affairs. Members of the trade union movement are quite able to deal internally with the difficulties as they arise, as the TGWU and other unions are quite able to do. In all the years, only one exception to that rule is constantly trotted out, involving what was then the Electrical Trade Union.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was as bad as that of any Right-wing member of the Tory party, and it made the Secretary of State look like a liberal. It was remarkable. That right hon. Gentleman was once a member of the Labour party and accepted everything that the Labour party could give him. He would not be where he is today if it had not been for the Labour party and the trade unionists and others who worked for him and backed him in the early years of his political life. I say to him as I say to others, "Don't turn your back" — although, of course, he has — "on the people who have sustained you in your political life."
I shall not make a long speech, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is sponsored by the TGWU, also has a right to speak in the debate. Today, the SDP and the Conservative party have once again stressed their basically anti-trade union attitudes. That is what this debate is all about. The move began many years ago with a pamphlet published by a group of Conservative lawyers which was entitled, "A Giant's Strength". They believed that the trade union movement was too powerful, that working people were getting conditions that were too good and they had to be cut down to size. That is what this debate and the legislation is all about, and that is what the right hon. Member for Devonport and the Government wish to do, although perhaps with a slightly different emphasis. They are trying to prevent the trade union movement from fighting for decent conditions and for workers' rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Penhaligon.

Mr. David Penhaligon: rose—

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment about my union's procedures. When I sought to intervene in his speech to correct him, he refused to give way. In addition, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made scurrilous comments about my trade union without any evidence and did not give me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is.

Mr. McNamara: I was about to come to the point. Perhaps you can tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how there can be a debate which is designed to attack the trade unions without Members who are sponsored by unions being given an opportunity to reply. I remind you that 28 Members are sponsored by the TGWU, which is more than the combined total of alliance party Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is one of several hon. Members who have been unable to speak in this very short debate, but he is a very experienced Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will find another way of putting his point on the record.

Mr. Penhaligon: rose—

Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might I suggest that if Labour Members had not attempted to prevent the debate from taking place,

and had not carried on for an hour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) might have been able to make his speech?

Mr. Penhaligon: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), because those of us who have been in the House for some time know that he is clearly part of the trade union movement and understands it.
However, it was slightly ironic that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for changing his party, because I understand that from 1941 to 1948 the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Communist party. I do not say that there is anything wrong with that, but he is not in a particularly strong position to criticise my right hon. Friend for changing his party. Another reason for enjoying the speeches of the hon. Member for Walton is that he now represents the Right wing of the Liverpool Labour party. That is clearly a mantle which the hon. Gentleman finds extremely difficult to bear in this House.
I should like to clarify several points that have been raised in the debate. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the executive of the NUM proposes at the July conference to change the rules to make it quite clear that Mr. Scargill does not have a casting vote and so may not be re-elected under the legislation. It was ludicrous of the Minister to claim that the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend were wrong. The Minister should be well aware that we have always taken the view—and accordingly we abstained from voting on the previous legislation — that although we want strike ballots eventually, the Government's proposals for ballots are not necessarily the best way of achieving that aim. We still think that trigger ballots are best, and much of the criticism of Labour Members about the legislation causing unofficial strikes has some substance to it.
I deal now with the political levy. I listened to what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, and I do not complain, because what he said is true. If the political levy is voted down, the trade unions will not be able to use money to ask people to vote for Labour candidates. I have a good few farmers in my constituency and, as any hon. Member who has two cows and a pig in his constituency will know, the most effective campaigning group is the National Farmers Union. It does not specifically ask people to vote Tory, but I suspect that behind the scenes it gives a fair bit of encouragement in that direction. As I understand things, the NFU would come within the legislation as currently proposed.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the ballot paper it specifically says that money has to come from a political fund if it is spent
on the production, publication or distribution of any literature, document, film, sound recording or advertisement the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate or to persuade them not to vote for a political party or candidate."?
Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Post Office Engineering Union found it impossible to persuade the Court of Appeal about our main purpose? We were defending jobs, but we were told that we were political. We lost the case because we could not persuade the court that we were pursuing trade union objectives.

Mr. Penhaligon: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman's union should take some advice from the


NFU, which has had quite remarkable success and, indeed, as a rural Member of Parliament, I can say, has sometimes caused me slightly embarrassing results for the past two decades.
However, I shall move on as there are only 12 minutes left in which to speak. I still believe that workplace ballots have something to recommend them. The problem is that for such ballots to be seen to be above question there must be a system of independent scrutineers. That is my view, and it is the position that I have taken for some considerable time.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Penhaligon: There is not time—there are 11 minutes to go.
I also take the view that the provision of independent scrutineers at all workplace ballots for great unions like the TGWU is a total impossibility in terms of resources and money. To take my own constituency, to offer scrutinised ballots the TGWU would have to employ the entire staff who man a general election. I do not believe that that is possible and realistic, so I am opposed to workplace ballots as currently constituted.
Clearly, the scrutineering is being done by parties which often have a very clear, firm view themselves. As I understand the legislation to be enacted in October of this year, that position will not change. If there is a ballot at a workplace, the scrutineers are likely to be the most partisan people in the entire campaign, because the chances are that they will be the leaders of the union. The Government are allowing that to continue and it is rather like, at a general election, allowing the Labour party to run the ballot in Durham, the Tories that in Surrey or the Liberals—to show that I am broadminded—that in Truro. I do not think that any of them would be the first persons to spring to mind to run an absolutely independent, above-board election in any of those areas. It is my view that sheer partisanship is bound to affect a minority and that it is bound to use the opportunities available. I believe that for a minority the temptation will be just too strong.
What is required are postal ballots with a register of members, and it is to the credit of the Government that at least eventually they will produce a register of members. The postal paper ballot should be sent to the members, and the individual members should send them to an independent agent. Anything less than that is open to adjustment.
Many of us recognise that some genuine ballots take place within the NUM, but one of the ironies—and this takes some explaining—is that at every important NUM ballot that I can recall since I have been a Member of Parliament we have been told the result, except when it has been a very close call, before the ballots have gone to the Electoral Reform Society for counting. That clearly means that somebody has been looking at the ballots and counting them. I am not saying that they have been adjusted, but occasionally the temptation so to do must be too much for the independent agent.
It is worth remembering that in the demonstration that took place it was by and large the most enthusiastic union members who sat on this Bench and denied my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport the opportunity to make his speech, and that they are the independent scrutineers whom the unions normally appoint. The truth is that the reliability of the trade unions in carrying out an absolutely independent, above-board ballot has fallen into disrepute.
The claim that 98 per cent. of the members of the TGWU and a whole series of unions voluntarily pay their political levy is quite incredible. The amazing situation that we now have is that the Labour party is arguing for the trade unions to maintain the position that is currently favourable to it, and the Government are coming to its defence in that. It is time that the Government recognised the logic of this motion and that Government Members voted for it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I suspect that if the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) had been able to draft this motion, he would have put down a slightly different one. He has given a rather more acceptable face to it than did the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
The leader of the SDP went through the first half-hour of what ought to have been this debate in a spirit of good humour and tolerance and I would like to recognise that. What we saw at the beginning of this debate was the kind of behaviour that some complain of at trade union branch meetings and others have experienced at Labour party meetings. When this happens anywhere, we ought to condemn rather than support it.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I will not.
One reason why this debate is so important is the shoe that was not dropped by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He did not talk much about political review ballots and the reason is that he knows that about 80 per cent. of that money goes to the Labour party and those who are not in the Labour party have a vested interest in stopping it. That is open and above board. What seems to me important is that, while people are saying things which are not right about the review ballots—one example was given in the SOGAT Journal and others are in the TGWU Record, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) could have said—there has been very little media interest in what anion journals are saying. I think that they might go through the list of unions with a political fund, as in the cerfication officer's report on SOGAT and get in touch with the editors of the jornals and ask if they believe what they are saying. When they give examples of what they claim requires political funds, they ought to ask whether that activity has in the past been funded by political funds or by the general fund. I suspect that in that way we would get many more people participating in the review ballots and I suspect that we would see some of the funds go.
I want to give a bit of advice to bank managers who are financing the political funds that are in deficit. They ought to be very careful about these, because if a union cuts off its political fund, the bank will be unable to get the money from any other part of union funds. That is one of the things that they ought to start looking at.
On the question whether we should have only postal ballots in this whole field, we need first of all to see what sort of employment protection Act we are promised by the Labour party. Are they going to keep the political fund review process? Are they going to keep regular elections for members of the executive of unions?

Mr. Evans: I do not know what the party's policy is yet, because we are having discussions with the trade


unions. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman and the Tory party what I want. I want to abolish the necessity for trade unions to have political funds.

Mr. Bottomley: We will see. It is quite clear—this runs right across the political spectrum from Ron Todd to the leader of the SDP—that unions need to demonstrate that their affairs are in order. As Ron Todd himself has said, to have unity, trust and confidence, there must be election systems which people do not and cannot tamper with. To balance that with the sort of participation rates which my right hon. Friend was talking about requires discussion and debate not only in the House but outside. It is the sort of subject that the House can return to with advantage so that we do not just have the sort of demonstrations that, sadly, we have seen today. We should hear from the Labour party and from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and get the kind of participation in union affairs which is essential. That is the only way that trade union activists can represent the interests of their members and increase interest in the unions.
There is no need for union leaders to be political godfathers. The normal and ultimately the natural posture of the trade union movement is one of neutrality towards each political party and co-operation with the Government in office. That doubles their influence. When there are trade union leaders who can demonstrate that they have the widespread support of their members, they are likely to be taken more seriously in all parts of the House and not just by those who want to barrack to get all points of view other than their own submerged in the sort of demonstration that we have seen today.
It is quite clear that trade union ballots and elections will never be the same again. Even in the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member—

Ms. Clare Short: Who did you vote for?

Mr. Bottomley: I did not vote this time, because it would have been a vote for the Labour party.
It is quite clear that, with political funds fairly run and with fair national executive elections, it is inconceivable that the general secretary should be elected in a different way. It is important to note that higher participation in union votes and elections is likely to result in a trade union movement that serves the interests of its members. Parliament will then serve the interests of trade unions.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 374.

Divison No. 191]
[7 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, A. J.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruce, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Penhaligon, David


Freud, Clement
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gregory, Conal
Sheerman, Barry


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
 Steel, Rt Hon David


Johnston, Russell
Wainwright, R.


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. John Cartwrith and



Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Tellers for the Ayes:






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Tom
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cowans, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Critchley, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Crowther, Stan


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli


Baldry, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dickens, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Dixon, Donald


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dorrell, Stephen


Bell, Stuart
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bellingham, Henry
Dubs, Alfred


Benn, Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benyon, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eggar, Tim


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Emery, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Favell, Anthony


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, Alexander


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brown, Gordon (D'f mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Forrester, John


Browne, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruinvels, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bryan, Sir Paul
Foster, Derek


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Foulkes, George


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burt, Alistair
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Caborn, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gale, Roger


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Galley, Roy


Campbell, Ian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Glyn, Dr Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
God man, Dr Norman


Chope, Christopher
Golding, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gow, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clarke, Thomas
Greenway, Harry


Clay, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Hanley, Jeremy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hannam, John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Kenneth






Harman, Ms Harriet
Madden, Max


Harris, David
Major, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Malins, Humfrey


Harvey, Robert
Malone, Gerald


Haselhurst, Alan
Maples, John


Hayes, J
Marek, Dr John


Hayhoe, Barney
Marland, Paul


Haynes, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Heddle, John
Martin, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hickmet, Richard
Mates, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Mather, Carol


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maude, Hon Francis


Hind, Kenneth
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hirst, Michael
Maxton, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Holt, Richard
Meacher, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Mellor, David


Hordern, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Michie, William


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Mikardo, Ian


Hoyle, Douglas
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hume, John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Moate, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Irving, Charles
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Jackson, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


John, Brynmor
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Nelson, Anthony


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Newton, Tony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nicholls, Patrick


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Normanton, Tom


Key, Robert
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


King, Rt Hon Tom
O'Brien, William


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Onslow, Cranley


Knowles, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Knox, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lambie, David
Ottaway, Richard


Lang, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Park, George


Lawrence, Ivan
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lee, John (Pendle)
Parris, Matthew


Leighton, Ronald
Patchett, Terry


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pavitt, Laurie


Lester, Jim
Pawsey, James


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Pike, Peter


Lightbown, David
Pollock, Alexander


Lilley, Peter
Porter, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lord, Michael
Powley, John


Loyden, Edward
Prescott, John


Luce, Richard
Price, Sir David


Lyell, Nicholas
Prior, Rt Hon James


McCartney, Hugh
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


McCrindle, Robert
Radice, Giles


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Randall, Stuart


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rathbone, Tim


Macfarlane, Neil
Redmond, M.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Richardson, Ms Jo


McKelvey, William
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rifkind, Malcolm


Maclean, David John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


McQuarrie, Albert
Robertson, George


McTaggart, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


McWilliam, John
Rooker, J. W,





Rost, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Ryder, Richard
Tinn, James


Ryman, John
Torney, Tom


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sheerman, Barry
Waller, Gary


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Warren, Kenneth


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Watson, John


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Weetch, Ken


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skinner, Dennis
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
White, James


Snape, Peter
Whitfield, John


Soley, Clive
Wiggin, Jerry


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winnick, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Michael


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.

Division No 192]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon 5,)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Benyon, William
Critchley, Julian


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Blackburn, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brinton, Tim
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fallon, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Favell, Anthony


Browne, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bruinvels, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman






Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Mellor, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Merchant, Piers


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gale, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Galley, Roy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neale, Gerrard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Normanton, Tom


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Cranley


Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harvey, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hayes, J.
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Pollock, Alexander


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry


Heddle, John
Portillo, Michael


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert
Powley, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hirst, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rathbone, Tim


Holt, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Irving, Charles
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom
Silvester, Fred


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Stern, Michael


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim
Sumberg, David


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lightbown, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Luce, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lyell, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


McCrindle, Robert
Waller, Gary


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Warren, Kenneth


Macfarlane, Neil
Watson, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Watts, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maclean, David John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


McQuarrie, Albert
Whitfield, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maples, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Woodcock, Michael


Mates, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Mather, Carol



Maude, Hon Francis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Mr. John Major and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Ian Lang.





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hume, John


Ashdown, Paddy
John, Brynmor


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Johnston, Russell


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnett, Guy
Kennedy, Charles


Barron, Kevin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, A. J.
Lambie, David


Bell, Stuart
Leighton, Ronald


Benn, Tony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Litherland, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bruce, Malcolm
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ian
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Martin, Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Michie, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbett, Robin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cowans, Harry
O'Brien, William


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Crowther, Stan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Park, George


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Pavitt, Laurie


Dewar, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Randall, Stuart


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Redmond, M.


Fatchett, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Faulds, Andrew
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forrester, John
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Rowlands, Ted


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ryman, John


Freud, Clement
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


God man, Dr Norman
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gould, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gourlay, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Snape, Peter


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Soley, Clive


Harman, Ms Harriet
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Heffer, Eric S.
Stott, Roger


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Howells, Geraint
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hoyle, Douglas
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wainwright, R.






Wallace, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael



White, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. John Cartwright and


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Winnick, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy.

Orders of the Day — Ports (Finance) Bill

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short, but necessary, Bill which I commend to the House. It is in three parts, and it deals with three distinct aspects of port finance.
Clauses 1 and 2 enable the Government to continue to help with the cost of restructuring an industry which has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. The reasons for those changes are well known the development of bigger but fewer ships; the need to minimise the time ships spend in port because of the high costs of ship operation; the effect on our patterns of trade of the development of North sea oil and of our membership of the European Community; improvements in our inland communications, both road and rail; and, of course, the evolution of new techniques of cargo handling, in particular the "container revolution." Ships now spend less time in port, so port facilities must be used more intensively; fewer berths are needed, and therefore fewer dockers. At the end of 1960, there were 74,000 registered dock workers. At the end of 1970, the number had fallen to 45,000; at the end of 1980 it had fallen to 23,000. By the end of 1984, the number of registered dock workers had fallen to 12,500.
Those dramatic changes have not been easy for the industry to cope with, but there has been remarkably little friction.
That contraction has been achieved largely through voluntary severances. In 1981–82 it became clear that the cost of this to the industry was becoming too severe, arid the Government decided to assist in two ways.
First, we recognised that the ports of Liverpool and London faced severe problems. Those ports had dominated the conventional break-bulk cargo business in deep-sea trades, and were therefore hard hit by the containerisation of so much of this traffic. They were faced with enormous problems of rationalising their labour, their organisation, and their port facilities. We therefore decided that it would be right to assist them in reducing their manpower and in enabling them to continue to operate while these changes were carried through. The Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 empowered the Government to make available to London and Liverpool up to £160 million by way of grants, loans and guarantees. That ceiling was raised in the Transport (Finance) Act 1982 to £360 million.
Secondly, in 1982 we decided to help the industry as a whole to meet the cost of severance payments to registered dock workers. As the House will know, special arrangements for severance apply to registered dock workers. They are not covered by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965; nor is their severance paid for directly by their employer. In 1969, the employers of registered dock workers entered into a national voluntary severance scheme, which is administered by the National Dock Labour Board. The board makes severance payments from a fund that it administers on behalf of the employers, and which is paid for ultimately by a levy on the employers.
Although by 1982 the fund had been substantially supported by Government loans, it was clear that at the rate at which voluntary severances were continuing, it was beyond the means of the employers both to service that debt and to meet the continuing cost of new severances. So we agreed to a three-year moratorium on the servicing of that debt, provided that the employers paid to the National Dock Labour Board a levy of £12 million annually to meet the cost of new severances.
A large part of the assistance which the Government have given to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company under the 1981 Act has been in the form of grants to pay the full cost of severing registered dock workers in those two ports—no less than £106.7 million. That has not been a discrimination in favour of London and Liverpool. The money has, in fact, benefited all ports in the dock labour scheme, because it has relieved the ports collectively of a cost that would otherwise have fallen directly upon the national voluntary severance scheme, and which they would otherwise have had to fund themselves.
London and Liverpool have continued to pay their share of the levy although they have not, because of special Government assistance, been drawing benefit in return from the scheme.
I have described the background in some detail because I believe that it helps to explain the reasons for clauses 1 and 2.
Since 1982, the reduction in port manpower has continued apace. In just over three years the register of dock workers in scheme ports has fallen by about a third and now stands at just under 12,000. In London and Liverpool, the decline has been proportionately greater, and the Government have committed in full the £360 million that Parliament authorised in 1982 for assistance to the PLA and the MDHC.
Moreover, the three-year moratorium on the servicing of the debt of the national voluntary severance scheme has now expired, and though the package of assistance for the scheme agreed in 1982 has made a major contribution to dealing with the severance finance problem, it has not yet solved it. The past year has been a particularly difficult one for the ports industry. As a result, the number of approved applications from registered dock workers for severance under the scheme has exceeded expectations. The number is well in excess of that which could be financed from the board's £12 million annual levy income. In fact, the rate of dock worker severances in scheme ports outside London and Liverpool has been running at over 1,000 a year, which on present scales costs £25 million a year.
To help the industry we have made a series of stop-gap arrangements to enable the board to fund those severances. The last of these, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in his minute laid before Parliament on 30 January, was a Government guarantee of the board's bank overdraft of up to £17.2 million, in addition to outstanding Government loans of £44.5 million. As we made clear at that time, our agreement to guarantee the commercial loan was intended to provide time to pursue alternative proposals for financing severances. We believe that there must be a continued strategic approach to the long-term restructuring of registered ports.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister must forgive my parochialism, but I see that there is no specification of Scottish ports in clauses 1 and 2. Does he anticipate that part of the grant mentioned in clause 1 will go towards redundancy schemes in one or more of the Scottish ports?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, any moneys paid under the Bill—whether under clause 1 or clause 2—will go to the national voluntary severance fund and, as such, will be used to pay for the redundancies of any registered dockers in any scheme port. Therefore, any Scottish scheme port will benefit just as much as any English scheme port. Non-scheme ports are totally outside the scheme.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettlestone): Will all dock workers be treated equally? Will the same severance scheme payment apply in Glasgow as applies in Liverpool or London?

Mr. Ridley: Hitherto, that has been the case, and I see no reason why it should not continue to be so. I must make it clear that there is also the interest of the employers in what they pay redundant workers. What we do is to provide the money for a certain level of severance—in this case £25,000 per head — but making a docker redundant is first suggested by the employer, then approved by the National Dock Labour Board, and at that point the final decision is taken. It is a fairly complex matter, but there has never been any discrimination.
Since our agreement to guarantee the commercial loan, discussions have been proceeding and are continuing with the port employers. But it is already clear that the scheme ports cannot meet the full cost of future severance needs and at the same time service and repay their outstanding severance debts. It is against that background, and the unique circumstances of the manpower regime in this industry, that clause 1 is necessary.
We cannot be sure of the future level of severances, but we must make provision now for some extra assistance towards severance costs. Therefore, we propose a new power to pay grants to the NDLB as a contribution towards the cost of registered dock worker severances. These grants are limited to £10 million, but a contingency provision is included to increase the amount in future years up to a maximum of £40 million, subject to affirmative resolution of the House.
This help is merely a recognition by the Government of the special difficulties of the dock labour scheme ports as they move towards providing an unsubsidised and competitive service to their customers. I have emphasised to the employers that while these powers will enable the Government to continue to contribute to the cost of dock worker severances, the cost of severances in this industry, as in other industries, is very properly a charge on the ports themselves. Soon they will have to shoulder the burden unaided.
Clause 2 relates to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Port of London Authority. Both have made strenuous efforts to adjust, and, with Government assistance, they are moving towards viability. They have, however, some way to go, and, in view of their importance, we believe that we should continue to help them towards that goal.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is it not a matter of the utmost regret that we are now raising the grants and


loans to those two ports to £500 million, which by any standard is an enormous sum of money? Is not my right hon. Friend now doing what he often accuses others of doing — throwing money at a problem and thereby deferring the day when we reach a competitive position and place those two ports on a viable and independent basis?

Mr. Ridley: This is not discrimination in favour of London and Liverpool, because the money actually goes towards the total expenses of the severance fund. It benefits London and Liverpool only to the extent that any of it may be used on non-registered dock workers' severances. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, as shown by the figures that I gave earlier, we have come a very long way towards achieving a position where scheme ports stand on their own feet and do without subsidy.
The fact that we have come down from 70,000 to 12,000 registered dock workers shows the immensity of the task that faced the industry. I believe that there was no alternative but to assist at least with compensation for those who lost their jobs due to the technological revolution in the docks.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State appears to be maintaining that clause 2 does not provide for any discrimination in favour of those two major ports as opposed to other scheme ports, yet the explanatory memorandum states that part of the additional sum of £140 million is for
supporting them while such measures are being taken".
What can that mean other than a subsidy to those two major ports which is not available to other ports, and which must, by definition, make those other ports less competitive?

Mr. Ridley: The explanatory memorandum may be misleading on that point. It is the Bill that matters. The only determinant of how much the Government have paid in the past has been the number of redundancies declared by and accepted from Liverpool and London, and that determines the sum of money — £25,000 by 1,000 redundancies, which makes £25 million — that the Government have paid to the fund. That sum is then available to all scheme ports for the redundancies that arise within them. At the same time, all scheme ports, including London and Liverpool, pay a share of the levy that is based on their number of employees. Therefore, in that respect the Bill does not produce any discrimination.
There is an element of discrimination in that the Government have been paying towards the cost of severing the non-registered dock workers in London and Liverpool, but not in other ports. As the hon. Gentleman will soon hear, we intend to phase out that assistance so as to take away the last element of discrimination.
The £360 million of assistance authorised by Parliament under previous legislation has been fully committed. Some £145 million has been made available to the MDHC, £170 million to the PLA and £24 million to the National Dock Labour Board in respect of severance payments made to registered dock workers in London and Liverpool before 1981. The remainder—£21 million—is earmarked for a debt write-off for the PLA. The authority to write off part of the PLA's debt to the Government and to repay commercial loans which the Government had guaranteed was given in the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act 1983.
Regrettably, neither the PLA nor the NDHC is yet in a position to manage its own affairs unaided, so the Bill

proposes to raise the limit for financial assistance from the Government by £140 million up to £500 million. I cannot say how much of this additional money it may be necessary to draw upon. A substantial amount will be needed for further severances, as there are still substantial surpluses in both ports.
Scheme ports should not be under any illusion that this increase in the potential funds available would mean that they can slacken their efforts to restore their industry to health — far from it. The tasks facing the industry remain tough ones.
I add two points. First, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), said at the end of 1982 that we were no longer prepared to make grants to the PLA and the MDHC to cover any deficits on their annual profit and loss accounts. We have stuck to that. I intend to continue to stick to that. There is to be no return to deficit funding.
Secondly, it is my firm intention to phase out assistance to these two undertakings. They should be in no doubt that public finance will be deployed for one purpose only: to put those ports under strong and steady pressure to make the changes necessary to achieve full commercial profitability, so that they can compete fairly with other parts of the industry. I therefore intend, as I told the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), to phase out, over a period, the Government grant towards the cost of severing their non-registered employees. These payments have given the PLA and the MDHC an advantage which other port undertakings have not had. It is right that in a competitive industry we should insist upon an equitable framework for competition.
The second and third parts of the Bill carry forward our general policy of deregulation and removing unnecessary Government controls and restrictions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to expand on what I briefly say when he comes to wind up the debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Clauses 3 to 5 remove various ministerial controls over trust port borrowing and other matters. These controls take no consistent pattern and are no longer appropriate. Their removal is consistent with the decision, announced in the autumn statement and confirmed in the recent public expenditure White Paper, to transfer trust ports' capital investment expenditure to the private sector from 1 April 1985. Up to that date, their investment had counted—increasingly illogically — as public expenditure. I say "illogically" because most ports — other than local authority ports—now obtain capital for new projects from the private sector anyway.
The funding of trust ports' capital investment in the main from private market sources has led us to conclude that the hotch-potch of ministerial consent provisions in trust ports' local legislation should be removed—partly because they are no longer needed and partly because their application and effect differ widely from one undertaking to another. Indeed, no trust ports' local legislation is alike in this respect. In practice, the powers of many ports are so framed that they can borrow all that they need within the basic limit specified in their local enactments, so they do not have to seek specific ministerial consent.
The third part of the Bill is clause 6. A year ago I announced my decision to do away with Government controls over new harbour development. Under section 9 of the Harbours Act and the control of harbour


development orders made under that section, no harbour development costing more than £3 million could be undertaken without my approval. This was an anachronism in a commercial, competitive industry. Accordingly, I made an order to revoke the orders which gave effect to section 9. The order was debated, on an Opposition motion, on 19 June last year, and approved by the House.
Section 9 itself, however, still remains on the statute book. Clause 6 of the Bill repeals it, along with all the consequential provisions which relate to it. The clause fulfils the undertaking that I gave a year ago, to repeal section 9 at an early opportunity.
The Bill is needed to help our ports to bring their manpower numbers into line with the requirements of the traffic that they now handle. Without these powers, scheme ports risk being forced to keep, and to pay, staff for whom they no longer have any need. This adds to their costs and hampers their ability to compete with non-scheme ports. It makes it more difficult for our ports to meet the competition from continental ports.
Therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Roger Stott: I apologise to the Secretary of State for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who, as the Secretary of State is aware, is serving on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. She is at dinner at the moment, but she is going back to the debate on deregulation of the bus industry. As we do not have as many shadow spokesmen as the Secretary of State has Ministers, it is important that my hon. Friend remains in her place. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not seek to gain possession of the Dispatch Box, because I shall be in my place throughout the debate.
The Secretary of State has given the reasons why the Government have yet again found it necessary to come to the House to seek approval to increase the limits of the financial assistance to the scheme ports, particularly to the ports of Merseyside and London. I shall not be encouraging my hon. Friends to seek to divide the House, because we are all too well aware of the financial difficulties that both these ports have undergone and in many respects are still undergoing.
The port authorities covered by the scheme will have to pay £800,000 a month in April and May to finance the voluntary redundancy fund; that is 20 per cent. less than last year. I understand that the severance scheme is about £58 million in debt, most of it to the Government. The Bill will mean that the National Dock Labour Board, as the Secretary of State said, will get £10 million grant, with further powers to receive another £30 million some time in the future. I have watched the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) through transport debates over the years. It makes a refreshing change, although he may not agree, to see this particular Secretary of State making public funds available to ensure that the scheme works properly.

Mr. Moate: I wish that it were a refreshing change. In this industry, this Secretary of State and this Government have consistently, time after time, come back to the House

and asked for more money. Every time, we are told that it is likely to be the last time, so why should we believe it now?

Mr. Stott: It makes a refreshing change for this Secretary of State to say that he is prepared to put more public money into making the scheme work properly. We are not complaining about that.
The decline in manpower in the port of London and in Liverpool illustrates in our view the chaotic state of the British port industry. When I left the Merchant Navy in 1964, my home port of Liverpool employed 13,500 dockers. Today, that has shrunk to 2,841. Some 301 jobs were lost through voluntary severance during the last 12 months, and more jobs could be lost in Merseyside as a consequence of the loss of the Isle of Man trade. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will enlarge on that problem if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
According to the Port of London Authority's latest annual report, the number of people employed by the PLA has been reduced from 4,406 to 3,553. That reduction included 400 registered dock workers and 453 nonregistered personnel, and represented a reduction of 17 per cent. in registered personnel and 22 per cent. in the rest of the work force. In the past twelve months alone, we have seen in those two ports a drastic reduction in manpower.
We have had a number of debates in the House on ports and harbours since the Government came to power, and under successive Secretaries of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in 1983, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in 1984, with every justification, repeated the assertion that the Government have no long-term strategy for the British ports industry other than selling off the profitable assets of Associated British Ports and Sealink harbours and dissolving the National Ports Council. That lack of a proper strategy has accelerated the rapid decline of the once great natural highways of the Mersey and the Clyde. It has encouraged Antwerp to become, one might almost say, another British seaport, just as Schiphol has become another British airport.
The Secretary of State's response to the decline of this great industry has been predictable. The Secretary of State and I and a number of our colleagues are engaged in a titanic battle in Committee because the Secretary of State is putting into practice his obsession with market forces by deregulating Britain's buses.
The Bill merely confirms the statutory instrument introduced last year. The right hon. Gentleman is deregulating Britain's ports by replacing section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964.
Among other things, section 9 included the words:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister, with a view to securing the proper control in the national interest of schemes of harbour development that appear to him to involve expenditure of a capital nature".
The important words are
in the national interest".
That section was inserted because it was felt at the time—and I still feel—that the development of ports is a national issue and should be treated on a national basis. That is what the Secretary of State seeks to do.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman wants endlessly greater investment in the infrastructure, why is it in the national interest to have powers that are limited to preventing investment being made in the infrastructure?

Mr. Stott: It is interesting that the Secretary of State should raise that point, given his views on the alleged profligacy of bus support. However, I shall answer it shortly.
Last year, at the annual dinner of the British Ports Association, the Secretary of State made his intentions clear. They were not surprising. The Secretary of State is well known for his neolithic views about how we conduct our affairs. He said:
Our predecessors saw"—
even this point is wholly wrong—
the ports as part of the infrastructure needing to be centrally planned, protected from so-called 'wasteful' competition, regulated by Government, with investment vigorously controlled by the state … We regard the ports industry as a normal industry like any other. Ports can and should compete among themselves. We have made them compete with each other as well as the continental ports".
That is typical of statements by the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East said in the debate on the statutory instrument:
This naive belief in the absolutism of competition shows an ignorance of port activities and of the industry.
I subscribe to that view.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the situation even more serious? My hon. Friend mentions Antwerp. On the philosophy of the Secretary of State, Dunkirk, Antwerp and Rotterdam are competing directly with London. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more surplus labour in London to be discarded. He did not give the figures. Is he not devoting public money to subsidising the elimination of port facilities in London necessitated by subsidised competition from municipal ports on the continent?

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend is quite right. That point was made by the managing director of the PLA when I visited Tilbury last year.
It is generally acknowledged in the industry—

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not given his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) a very satisfactory answer. Rotterdam is probably the biggest port in western Europe. It handles about the same amount of trade as the whole United Kingdom. It employs about 4,400 dockers—about a third of our total. That is why overseas ports take our trade. They are more efficient in the use of labour.

Mr. Stott: We could stay here all night disagreeing with the Secretary of State's interpretation of facts and figures. Neither I nor my hon. Friend believe what the right hon. Gentleman says for a moment, and I am sure that my hon. Friend preferred my answer to the helpful intervention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Spearing: I certainly did.
I visited Rotterdam last October. It is very different from the British ports because it fulfils a somewhat different function although it can compete with the ports of south-east England.

Mr. Stott: It is generally acknowledged by those in the industry—even if not by the Secretary of State—that there is serious over-capacity in our ports now, and has been for some time. That became abundantly clear last

year when Southampton, regrettably, ceased to function as a port for a considerable time. The cargo was absorbed quite easily by other United Kingdom ports.
During the 1983 debate, my hon. Friends graphically illustrated to the House the way in which their ports had declined—especially the ports on the west coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, (Mr. Marshall) summed up the debate for the Opposition. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said:
It is horrible to think that 10 years or so ago there were over 2,000 shipping movements on the Clyde, but last year there were only 112. We have seen a collapse from about 1.6 million tonnes of general cargo to under 500,000 tonnes."—[Official Report, 14 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 86.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) can confirm that there has been an even bigger decline in traffic movements on the Clyde and in cargo movements.
With my hon. Friends from the shadow transport team, I paid an official visit to Glasgow some years ago. At Gushetfaulds freightliner terminal, we discovered that crates of bottles of Scottish whisky were not bei:ag exported through the great natural highway of the River Clyde but were being put aboard freightliner trains, sent to south-east England and shipped out from Felixstowe. That is the result of a lack of strategic planning.
It will not have escaped the Secretary of State's attention that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has introduced a private Bill with a view to extending its facilities. I want it to be understood clearly by all concerned that we shall vigorously oppose that Bill because of the damage that it will do to other port facilities, especially to the port of Ipswich, which I shall visit tomorrow with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). We shall discuss that matter with the work force and the port managers.
Britain's ports are in decline. There are now 87 per cent. fewer registered dock workers than there were 12 years ago. The redundancies have been accelerated by the Government, under whom there are more than 12,000 fewer registered dock workers—a decline of nearly 50 per cent. Investment has also declined by the same proportion. Government policy is to leave the development of ports to the market place, with no assessment of the needs of the country.
The fortunes of British ports are tied closely to the patterns of foreign trade, and they have shared a fate similar to that of the merchant shipping industry in the past 20 years. The pattern of development of ports has also been closely connected with the demands of shipowners, dock companies and the users. The Government believe that ports ought to develop according to the demands of the market place, and they have removed powers to control port development from the statute book. That was done primarily to ensure that they did not have to make a decision on whether to allow Falmouth's container port to develop.
It is nonsense to say that ports can develop without any implications for the Government. Southampton has all the facilities of a port, including the benefits of past. Government investment in developing the road network to cope with the traffic. Falmouth, however, is developing without the necessary infrastructure having been built. If


developments at Falmouth go ahead, it will not be long before the industry and port users demand new and expensive roads and railheads to the terminal.
Ports are vital to the British economy and involve millions of pounds of public money. There should be sensible planning and proper use of resources. The history of British port development in the past 20 years is one of poor planning, uneven development and decline in traditional port areas.
Another sign of the decline in ports traffic comes from the figures of tonnage that has gone through British ports in the past 20 years. Traffic has increased, but the increase in oil traffic accounts for most of it. The development of North sea oil has meant an increase in the overall oil traffic through ports and a turnround from petroleum imports outweighing exports to exports outweighing imports.
The figures disguise what has happened to the distribution of traffic. There has been a substantial loss of trade on the west coast of Britain, especialy in south Wales, on the Mersey and on the Clyde and a concomitant gain on the east coast and in channel ports. The increasing use of container or railway traffic is likely to continue. That will probably mean a further increase in spare capacity in British ports, and further redundancies and loss of port investment.
The Government's policy towards ports has been counter-productive. They have often sided against the unions on the operation of the national dock labour scheme, ducked out of crucial decisions on port development by removing legislative controls, abolished the National Ports Council and privatised Government-owned ports.

Mr. Ridley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State says, "Hear, hear," but the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Government for under-pricing Associated British Ports when it was privatised.
Britain's ports are suffering from the problems of excess capacity, financial instability, fragmented control and insecurity among the work force. For the sake of our ports, we should have a rational policy. We must assess the needs and invest in the appropriate ports accordingly. Rather than shirk their responsibilities, the Government should be engaged in rational planning which maximises the potential of the ports and does not force the Government into unnecessary infrastructure costs around new ports.
The Labour party will develop its policy and continue to insist on the establishment of a national ports authority. We believe that that is essential for the control of our major ports. The Government have taken a laissez-faire attitude to the problems of the port industry and dissolved the body—the National Ports Council — which took a central view about how our ports should develop. When we return to office we shall reconstitute the National Ports Council and bring some order to the chaos that the Government have brought to our industry.
We shall not quarrel with the Secretary of State about providing more money for the severance scheme, but the repeal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 is a further example of his inhabiting the planets of lunacy. That step will not help the British ports industry but increase uncertainty and ensure that ports develop haphazardly. It

will also turn the ratchet once more against the west coast ports and in favour of south coast ports. We know what redundancies and problems will result from that. We might return to this matter in Committee.

Mr. Michael Stern: Despite my natural reluctance to welcome a Bill which increases public spending and subsidises an industry, knowing all the distortions that such subsidy creates, I welcome the measure as part of the long process of bringing a sense of reality to many of the country's ports.
Despite the 1950s style of maundering and harking back to the golden age when everything was under the control of the Secretary of State offered by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), it is worth considering why some of the Bill's provisions are necessary. They are necessary because the dock labour scheme, as amplified by the Jones-Aldington agreements, created an aristocracy in the ports. As is always the case, the only peaceful way to get rid of an aristocracy is to buy it out. It is not easy to buy out an entrenched aristocracy.
On the current problems of the port of Bristol, that city's Evening Post reported as follows on 18 April:
manpower cutting plans are being held up by a wrangle between management and the Transport and General Workers Union...port bosses find they have no work for two electrician labourers and want the jobs declared redundant. The union is insisting the previously agreed manning scales should be met and the posts filled.
In other words, the attitude in the ports is that it does not matter that they have no work or that providing labour increases the cost of the port and therefore continues its decline, the posts must be filled.
In most ports, only the taxpayer funds the costs of removing the aristocracy 'created by the dock labour scheme. In Bristol, however, the same taxpayer pays twice, for it is the only major municipally owned port in Britain, and all the losses of the Bristol port fall on the ratepayer. Thus, the ratepayer in Bristol, as a result of the dock labour scheme, pays not only for the local losses but contributes his share, as a taxpayer, to the losses of all the scheme ports in the country. What the Opposition principally resent about the non-scheme ports is that they are not dependent upon the state because, in most cases, they are making a profit.
I listened with interest, though with an air of disbelief, to the comments of the Secretary of State when he attempted to answer what might have been an examination question, "Compare and contrast London and Liverpool ports with all other ports in this country." It is a major difference not only that the ports of London and Liverpool are covered by the National Dock Labour Board, as dealt with the clause 1, but that they need special provision because that funding is provided not just for the voluntary severance of registered dock workers, but for the voluntary severance of non-registered dock workers.
Such a policy, while it continues, cannot but cause resentment, not only among non-registered dock workers, in particular in the port of Bristol, but among the ratepayers of Bristol, who find themselves contributing twice to the severance pay of non-registered dock workers.
In addition, considerable resentment is created by the London and Liverpool schemes as between registered and non-registered dock workers in the port of Bristol because,


again, the setting up of an aristocracy by the dock labour scheme has meant that some dock workers are more equal than others.
It is generally accepted that the drip feed into the Treasury, which the special schemes for London and Liverpool comprise, must continue, but I want a more specific assurance than the Secretary of State gave about when, and in what manner, the drip feed will end. It has gone on for a considerable time. We, who as ratepayers pay for the non-drip-fed ports, are entitled to an assurance that sooner or later the drip will be cut off.
I welcome the aspects of deregulation in clauses 3 to 6. Can anyone, even the hon. Member for Wigan, seriously maintain that it is a necessary factor in modern port operation that the Minister should be entitled to name the auditors for the port? If so, I shall willingly give way to enable the hon. Gentleman to explain why ports alone are incapable of choosing their own auditors.
Similarly, given that it is the policy of the Government that ports should look more to private finance—in the case of Bristol that is unfortunately the local ratepayer; in many other ports private finance is obtained, and Bristol is moving in that direction—it is nonsense that an additional borrowing constraint should be placed on ports, unlike other industries. We are not talking about public sector borrowing controls. We are talking of an additional constraint as if investment in a port did not require borrowing. Because of that, according to Labour Members, it should be made more difficult for them to obtain it.
I shall not repeat what was said in the debate on 19 June 1984 in relation to section 9 of the Harbours Act. The remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that night and those of Labour Members tonight were, as I said in the June debate, the language of Stalinism and the language of Mussolini-type Fascism. All other commercial entities can make commercial decisions, but in the ports alone commercial decisions must be at the behest of the Minister.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with accusing the Opposition of being in any way, shape or form related to Mussolini-type Fascism. I greatly resent his remark and I hope that he will have the decency to withdraw it.

Mr. Stern: I shall certainly not withdraw it, because the policy of the Opposition, as related to the House tonight, and as related in June 1984, is indistinguishable from the state-operated control of major industries that occurred in Italy in the 1930s. I am not accusing Opposition Members of advocating other aspects of Fascist policy. I am only saying that in this area their policy is indistinguishable from it.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me. Nor do I think that he has satisfied my hon. Friends. We want that section of the Act to be retained because we believe that it is in the national interest that ports policy should be controlled. The hon. Gentleman suggests that, simply because we hold that view, in some way we subscribe to the views of Mussolini and the Fascist dictatorship in Italy in the 1930s. Many of my hon. Friends fought against Fascism in the second world war and we greatly resent remarks made in the House suggesting

support on our part for Fascism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now have the decency to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman continues to refuse to listen to what I am saying. I repeat that the policy of the Opposition to ports is identical to the policy that was adopted towards major industries by Mussolini. I could, if the hon. Gentleman wished me to do so, draw other parallels, for example with the economic policy of the Roman empire as it was applied to certain outlying states. [interruption.] I am sorry if Labour Members resent that parallel too and choose to draw one that goes far further than was inherent in anything that I said.
On the subject of the revocation of the order in relation to the Act, I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan on a point that was raised in the debate on 19 June. I seek, as he sought, an assurance from the Minister which has so far not been forthcoming. Unlike Opposition Members, if business men feel that there is profit to be made and employment to be created from the development of a new port, my attitude is to tell them to go ahead. It is no concern of mine. However, if, as the result of that development, the Minister finds it necessary to seek additional expenditure on the infrastructure surrounding that port, then, like Opposition Members, 1, representing the ratepayers of the city of Bristol, who already pay heavily through their rates for one port, strongly resent my constituents being asked to pay to support an opposing port. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that in any port development in future expenditure on the infrastructure will be entirely out of the pockets of the developers of the port.
Against normal principles, I welcome the Bill. It is part of a process that has perhaps gone on too long but, nevertheless, once started in 1946 by the introduction of the dock labour scheme, and all the problems that it generated, the process must be brought to a conclusion. I share the hope expressed by my right hon. Friend that the process can be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) except to point out that his knowledge of port is probably of port out of a bottle rather than ports such as we are talking about in the debate.
The hon. Member referred to the national dock labour scheme that was established by Ernie Bevin in 1946. The hon. Member and the House should understand that it is the very processes that followed the establishment of that scheme that we are debating today. The Secretary of State has never made any secret of his abhorrence of the national dock labour scheme. If he had been around at the time and had had his way he would probably have strangled it at birth. Fortunately for many people, he was not around then.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West referred to the privilege—I think that was the word he used—of registered dock workers. In the period that the hon. Member was talking about, there were 16,000 registered dock workers working in the port of Liverpool on a system of casualisation. They went to the docks three, four or five times a week to seek work. They had to stand on stands, being treated worse than animals, to be selected for work


at the whim of the ship's boss. That period is a blot on British industrial relations. The hon. Member should recognise that casualisation and hyper-exploitation through the pen system of hiring ended long since and that we do not want to see that system again.
When we consider what the Secretary of State wants to do in this Bill, we have to ask if we are moving back to that state of affairs. In spite of what has been said from the Government Front Bench, it has been the clear intention of the Government and the Secretary of State to abolish the national dock labour scheme. They knew that if there had been a blatant and direct attempt to do so in the past it would have resulted in prolonged industrial disputes in the docks. Therefore, the Government decided that the non-scheme ports should be developed. That is why we have in this Bill the amendment to section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. That means that through control — the word "control" should be seen in its proper context as planning control — non-scheme ports should be efficient and should be spread around the United Kingdom in accordance with trade in and out of the ports.

Mr. Stern: rose—

Mr. Loyden: It has to be recognised that the modernisation of the ports following the Devlin report in 1967 resulted in a transformation of the national dock labour scheme. As I said, it has been the clear intention of the Government to abolish that scheme.
I was surprised that hon. Members in interventions this evening suggested that Liverpool and London were being treated better than the rest of the ports. Since the money that is to go to Liverpool and London is for buying off more jobs, I wonder what those hon. Members meant. With the Isle of Man ferry company leaving Liverpool after more than 150 years, the dock company will be obliged to go to the National Dock Labour Board to report a further surplus in requirements for registered dock workers. In that sense the Secretary of State is enabling the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to destroy more jobs in Liverpool through redundancy payments.
The House is well aware that that area already has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom. We do not welcome the Secretary of State's action, nor will registered dock workers welcome the fact that further money will be made available for redundancies. At the end of the day, they may be compelled by the nature of the industry to accept it, but there will be resistance for a further reduction in the registered dock labour force in Liverpool. In the 1950s that force stood at 15,000: by the 1970s it was down to 7,000, and now it is less than 2,000.
It is not just the port industry that has been affected by that downward spiral. The whole hinterland of Merseyside has been affected because industries and commerce were linked to the port economy. The Government must consider seriously the effect that the reduction in the dock labour force has had not just on the port, with seven miles of docks closed, but on the community that lives adjacent to the docks. With the exception of the development of the Albert dock and other places at the south end, those communities have been left with the obsolescence and problems that empty docks create.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Could the hon.

Member develop more fully the point he is making and bring out for me what he believes will be the help to Liverpool in competing for trade if it has to carry large numbers of dockers for whom it has no work? Does he think that will help Liverpool to get more trade or will it do the reverse—hasten the loss of trade, which neither he nor I would wish to see?

Mr. Loyden: I shall give the Minister an example of how it would not help Liverpool. Two or three months ago, Saex moved from Southampton to Merseyside. For the purpose of this debate, the reasons are irrelevant. Liverpool was struggling to cope with the additional trade. Is it not fair comment that a continuing reduction in the number of registered dock workers in the port of Liverpool will limit its possibilities of attracting trade? If the Government are intent upon reducing the number of registered dock workers in Liverpool, London and elsewhere, they are minimising the possibility of those ports ever attracting more trade. There will be no question of further recruitment in the event of trade going to those ports.
In that sense Saex is a perfect example of how the port of Liverpool is restricted in developing further opportunties for trade. It could cope with the Saex trade only with great difficulty. Had there been a further reduction in the work force it would not have been able, in my view and in the view of the registered dock workers, to cope with that increase in trade.
Therefore, such scheme ports face a clear impediment in that situation.
That discloses the real intention behind the Bill. The non-scheme ports are now being given virtually unlimited powers to carry out the functions of the scheme ports, which can be done, because of the finite nature of the trade, only at the expense of the scheme ports. The scheme ports happen to be in areas of very high unemployment. The north-south syndrome comes into the argument again.
Through those powers and many other things, the ports' functions are being restricted. I worked in the port of Liverpool for 28 years and claim, for that reason, to know something about the port transport industry. If I do not, after 28 years, there must be something radically wrong with me. I have seen the development of the ports from the early post-war years in 1946 up to the present day. I have seen the effects of the lack of investment in the scheme ports over the years, which were run by shipowners in the interests of shipowners. They were both the landlord and tenant of the ports because they were sitting on the board of the dock company, and the shipowners and merchant princes used the ports as tenants. Therefore, they regulated the costs of the ports in accordance with their own whims, which meant that they were kept at a low level. There were startling revelations in the 1960s, when 12s 6d was still being charged for the hire of a crane. That shows the way in which the ports were run by those people. It had nothing to do with the so-called elitist registered dock workers. The misery and hyper-exploitation of that pre-war period should not return.
In view of what the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have said now and on previous occasions, I wonder what the answer would be if Liverpool were to win trade and could not meet it because of the manning levels—the number of registered dock workers in the port. One answer is to go to casual labour in the ports and docks. Therefore, we may not have seen the end of


casualisation. I am very concerned about the possible effects that this limitation will have on the ports of Liverpool and London and, indeed ports in Scotland and the north-east.
During the debate on what became the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, the Secretary of State made it clear that he wanted to see the end of the national dock labour scheme. The industry may now be drifting back, at least in the scheme ports, to a form of casualisation if the required numbers are not met by the number of RDWs employed.
That is the Government's clear intention, and it is underpinned by the decisions taken by the Secretary of State to enhance the non-scheme ports. As he sees it, and as the Government probably see it, the scheme ports will wither on the vine if the jobs there are brought off and restrictions are placed on their capability of taking on further work and bringing further trade into the ports. The obvious consequence is that the non-scheme ports will flourish and the scheme ports will die away. There is sufficient evidence that we have already gone a long way along that road.

Mr. David Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman believes that scheme ports will wither on the vine as the non-scheme ports gain their trade, what solution does he offer? If the non-scheme port is more economic and able to attract custom, in his scheme of things how would he put right the withering on the vine of the scheme port?

Mr. Loyden: I think that I have made a sufficient contribution to that argument. I thought that the Minister would now understand the situation. There has been an act of deliberate policy on the part of those controlling the scheme ports to see that the investment does not go there. That has nothing to do with the scheme ports as such. The non-scheme ports have developed without a history in the docks industry. It is the clear intention of the Secretary of State and the Government to use the clean slate of the new complexes in the non-scheme ports as a way of breaking down the national dock labour scheme and the tremendous efforts put in by the registered dock workers to establish a decent standard of living for themselves and their families and decent conditions in the docks where they work.
I see the Bill as taking us much further along that road. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) paved the way in the debate in exposing the Government's intentions for the national dock labour scheme. It has nothing to do with Liverpool or London having more money. That money will be provided to reduce the number of jobs in Merseyside, an area of high unemployment, and the port of London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I come to the debate, not as the Liberal party's spokesman on transport, but, as is fairly self-evident, as someone who has inherited a constituency the name of which is most associated with the docks and the port industry of the past. The Minister will know that the vast bulk of the constituents who are mine today in Southwark and Bermondsey are people whose families earned their living and made their way because of the success of the port that was London.
Let me reflect briefly over the 33 years of my life. I was born in the last days of the second post-war Labour

Government, when the scheme ports were very much places where activity was concentrated and planned and we sought to make sure that we retained our place in the markets of the world, with ports guaranteed to provide those facilities. I jump ahead to a date when the figures are nicely rounded. In 1966, 25,000 dock workers were registered in London. Today's figure has been given to the Minister: it is about 4,000. Of course, the port has moved downstream from the docks on my side of the river—the Surrey docks in Bermondsey—to Tilbury and so on.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions which the Bill does not answer. I welcome the ability of the scheme to pay for people who do not have work and for those who wish to take voluntary redundancy. That is right if people want to move out of the industry. It is better that they should have money to go in search of work elsewhere. The financing has needed to be upgraded on a regular basis. This is the fourth occasion since 1979 when the Government have come to the House with proposals for increasing the financing for ports. That is right, and I do not object to it. Therefore, clauses 1 and 2 are unexceptionable.
However, what begs the question is what the Minister failed to say in answer to questions that were asked earlier. It has been accepted that trade has moved over to the east and south coast ports. The pattern between the established ports and the new ports has been that ports such as Felixstowe have become effective and important contributors, while we have retained our old ports and sought to make sure that, inasmuch as they can compete for trade and hold it, they are able to do so. Merseyside and Liverpool are those two ports par excellence.
London is an east coast port. It is the capital city. There will always be a need for a decent port facility on the Thames. There is a great demand for goods to be brought to London, whether in containers to Tilbury and then by road on the M25 or elsewhere, or broken down at Tilbury and brought upstream and unloaded for servicing London. What concerns me is that in the contribution of the Secretary of State there was no projection of the need for grant or labour in London.
I obviously have a vested interest and wish to address my remarks primarily to that issue. What is the Government's projection of the future need in terms of labour and trade for the port of London? If the Government are saying that they will leave it to the market place, it could be—I do not say that it will be—that the port of London, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), will wither on the vine. It is a ludicrous proposition, when we are competing with Rotterdam, Antwerp and the major entry ports of our neighbours and allies in commerce in Europe, to think that our capital city, which has good port facilities, might not be able to have a planned development which retains its importance, given the facilities which it has historically inherited.
I hope that the Government do not believe that we can apply at some early time in the future the principle of the magic of the market place when we start, not from here, but from the fact that this inbuilt infrastructure of the ports exists with the potential for the port of London to be efficient, effective and important as part of the port network throughout the United Kingdom. This could be done without any detriment to potential competing demands for ports elsewhere.
First, what is the Government's plan for the port of London? All that the Bill does is to provide money to pay off those who will not have work. We need to ensure that there is a positive and not just a negative side to the coin of paying off what would be a reduced labour force.
Secondly, there have been consultations. The Minister, following the public inquiry last year into the rates imposed by the PLA on private operators on the Thames, will be aware of the decision to retain, but to reduce, rates. There is a new private sector in the Thames, the wharfingers. They can play an important, and I believe increasing, part in the prosperity of the lower river and of the upper port. My constituency and the Government's plans, through the urban development corporation, envisage such developments.
If, at some stage, the Government plan to take away the rates which the PLA charges, which effectively subsidise its commercial undertaking—that is, to take from the private wharf owners to subsidise the PLA—can they guarantee that that will not be done simply on a commercial basis if that would act to the detriment of the PLA's finances? Will the phasing out procedures envisaged as a result of the inspector's report and the Secretary of State's response take into account on the one hand the need to reduce the burden on the wharfingers and on the other the need to ensure that an unmanageable burden is not imposed on the PLA?
My last point relates to the planning of our ports policy. The pattern of events seems to show that there is some potential for developing new ports round Britain. However, it seems that there is also great potential—the case has been argued in many erudite reports — for ensuring that the river which comes up to London and services London is better used for commerce than it has been hither to. I do not expect the Minister, in the context of the Bill, to accept that it would be right to make such a provision, but it would be reassuring to know that the Government take seriously the interest which I believe the Docklands Corporation has shown in trying to maximise the commercial use of the Thames as an adjunct to, support for and extension of the existing dock and port facilities of London.
There is enormous potential, possibly for different sorts of trade. The technological revolution means that things have moved on. I hope that the Minister can say something encouraging about what he and his Department are doing, and are prepared to do, to ensure that the port of London and the PLA, which is responsible for the two different parts of the river, can—without detriment to anybody else's commercial success against other competitors—maximise London's unique potential for trade. That is why in the first place the port of London was the subject of a scheme, with all the infrastructure and planning and regulations that were established.
I do not propose to oppose the Bill. However, we look for more than merely financial temporary measures, which in my view is what the Bill is accepted to be. We look for something that will inject health, and not just money to pay off people. We look for more than the statement that the magic of the market place must rule irrespective of the interests of the port of London. I hope and believe that the Minister can be more reassuring, but I have yet to hear it.

Mr. David Marshall: I fully support and endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the intentions of the Government towards a national dock labour scheme and registered ports. I think that I need not elaborate on what he said.
I wish to bring to the notice of the House the serious situation in the Clyde port authority. If no action is taken soon by the Government, there will not be a Clyde port in the true meaning of the term, and the authority will be reduced to carrying out the role of a conservancy agency. It is inconceivable to think of the Clyde without any port at all. The indications are already there because the former Queen's dock is now the site of the new Scottish exhibition centre, and the former Prince's dock is now the site of the 1988 international garden festival. Welcome as these new ventures are, there is no shortage of alternative sites for them. It would be preferable if the docks had continued to work as a part of a busy port, as was the case not long ago.
Since its inception in 1966, the Clyde port authority has been a fairly profitable operation, but since 1980 it has made steady losses each year, and the total work force has been reduced from 2,000 to 500—a redundancy level of 75 per cent. in the short span of four years. The workers have not benefited from some of the enhanced payments proposed in the Bill.
In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the Clyde port authority never received any special grants or aid from the Government, and it has been forced to sell off many of its assets, such as land, in order to meet its day-to-day operating costs. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give detailed facts and figures relating to activities on the River Clyde. In my brief remarks, therefore, I shall confine myself to some general issues of concern not only to Glasgow but to west central Scotland as a whole.
For the benefit of hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the Clyde, the port is like a stack of dominoes. There is the Hunterston ore terminal, Greenock container dock, Ardrossan harbour company and Meadowside granary. Take one away, and they will all eventually come tumbling down. Yet each and every one of them is at risk at present. The key domino to the future of the port is the Hunterston ore terminal. That terminal is crucial to the future of the port, yet its very existence hangs by a thread. That thread is the continuation of the Ravenscraig steelworks at Motherwell. Without Ravenscraig there would be no need for the Hunterston ore terminal, and without that terminal there would be no Clyde port at all.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is one of the Bill's supporters, will take steps to ensure the continuation of Ravenscraig, and so guarantee the future of the Hunterston terminal, thus making the provisions of the Bill unnecessary, at least for Hunterston. The Greenock container terminal has only one container firm remaining there. I hope that the Secretary of State will do all that he can to keep it there. In addition, the Ardrossan harbour sea wall needs repair.
I mention these points because the Clyde port authority cannot afford from its own resources to make concessions to container operators or to invest in the necessary new infrastructure and equipment that would make it a modern, competitive port. It is unable to do that, because it has


never received the assistance that other ports have received. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
The Meadowside granary in Glasgow is the second largest in Europe, with a capacity of well over 100,000 tonnes; yet it is lucky if, at any time, there are 10,000 tonnes of grain in it. It is operating at only a fraction of its capacity. All that could be changed substantially for the better. I understand that recently the EEC intervention board visited it regarding the possibility of storing EEC intervention grain there. If that is to be done, improvements will need to be made to the loading facilities. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all that he can to get that grain into Meadowside? Will he tell us what the prospects are for any shipments of intervention grain going to the Clyde this year?
I am glad that earlier, in response to my intervention, the Secretary of State confinned that all dockers covered by the national voluntary service scheme, regardless of location, will receive the same treatment and that the sum will be £25,000 per person. I understand that until a week or two ago the figure for Glasgow was £16,000, but that happily there were no takers. Will the right hon. Gentleman again confirm that the figure for Glasgow workers will be £25,000?
Dredging on the River Clyde costs the port authority about £1·5 million per annum, yet there is no statutory obligation on it to carry out that work. If it has to stop doing it because of its desperate financial position, what will happen to the shipbuilding industry on the upper Clyde? What future will there be for Govan Shipbuilders and for the newly-privatised Yarrows yard in Scotstoun? Severance schemes, even at an enhanced rate, are not the answer to such problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) referred to the speech made in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) in March 1983. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will confirm that we take no pleasure in informing the House that the situation on the Clyde is much worse than it was only two years ago. One reason why the Clyde is experiencing such difficulties is that the traffic is diminishing. In recent times 75 per cent. of our trade has been with South America. We are concerned about the need to bring more business to the Clyde. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all that he can to attract new business to the Clyde and to build on the South American connection, whether or not it is to the Government's political liking?
As Clydeside Members of Parliament, we expect some evidence from the Government that they are aware of the major problems confronting the largest port in the west of Scotland and of the imminent threat of closure. The Clyde has been treated inequitably compared with other ports. I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, as he will no doubt recall meeting the delegation of workers from the Clyde, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden, and for Greenock and Port Glasgow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and me on 26 April last year. We were asking for parity of treatment with Liverpool and London. We were asking not for any additional aid or concessions, but only for parity. Surely that is not too much to ask for.
I hope that the Secretary of State will make a positive response to the appeals that I have made on behalf of the Clyde port.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I give the Bill a general welcome. It is good evidence—

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Fallon: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene other than from a sedentary position?

Dr. Godman: Perhaps I should apologise, but 1 was pointing out from a sedentary position that the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Fallon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was asleep earlier, but I was here for both the opening speeches. I then had to leave the Chamber for another engagement, but I have now returned. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill is good evidence that the transfer of ports from the Department of Trade and Industry was a good move. They are now covered by one of the more enterprising Departments. I only hope that one day the Department of Transport will complete the exercise by taking from the Treasury control of the freeports and encouraging the development of a second generation of freeports under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rather than under those of the Customs and Excise.
The Bill is about freeing our ports. I welcome all the dismantling of controls that it contains. If I have one small reservation about it, it involves clauses 1 and 2. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing is not unreasonable—he is a reasonable man—but the amounts of money involved are large, and he is taking a considerable power.
I wonder whether hon. Members are not entitled to a slightly clearer statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I am not sure whether I have his attention at present—on the timetable that he hinted at. He spoke of the unique circumstances and the special difficulties. That might seem to be rather Department of Energy language to those of us who consider the various borrowing powers Bills that are presented to the House. But I put it no stronger than that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was his intention that assistance generally should be phased out. I wonder whether we could be given a slightly clearer idea whether he envisages the clause 1 arrangements, in particular, having any sort of medium-term permanency. The difficulties that have arisen and that clauses 1 and 2 are intended to tackle arise in no small part not because of the absence of a scheme but because of the very generosity of the scheme and the enormous costs thus imposed. It seems to me that the scheme as a whole has quite clearly destroyed rather than protected them. The clearest evidence for that is the ports to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—that is, Antwerp and Rotterdam. It is to those ports that we should look and that ports in this country hoping for commercial success should look.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, South, I paid a visit to the port of Rotterdam some three or four years ago and was enormously impressed by its efficiency. It may well be a different type of port from some that we have been considering tonight, and there is no doubt that it has very different working practices. It was made absolutely


clear to me that no-strike agreements were at the heart of those working practices. Under his contract, an employee of the port of Rotterdam authority is not allowed to go on strike.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member, by what he has just said, has obviously had more experience than I of the workings of the Rotterdam docks and industry and also the industrial relations that exist there. Can he tell the House whether there have been any industrial disputes since his last visit there three of four years ago?

Mr. Fallon: I cannot tell the House that, and I certainly do not claim great experience. I made a visit there, which lasted two days, as a guest of the port of Rotterdam authority. Strikes certainly did not seem to feature very high on their agenda, nor did they anticipate many in the future.
I would have hoped that in clauses 1 and 2 my hon. Friend would have laid as great stress on the need to modernise working practices and reform labour relations in the docks as he is quite evidently laying on the need for port employers to address their minds to the problem of restoring their finances.

9 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I start by asking the Minister if, in winding up, he will elaborate on the observation made by his right hon. Friend during his comments on clauses 1 and 2 to the effect that soon the ports will have to shoulder their burden unaided. I ask that because I should like to know if the Government envisage phasing out the severance scheme. this was the fate, as the House will recall, of the British Shipbuilders' severance scheme and I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is pointing us in the same direction.
Representing a port on the Clyde, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of the docks on Merseyside and in London. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I would remind the Secretary of State of the very serious economic circumstances of the ports not only on the Clyde, but on the Forth as well.
The deterioration suffered by Britain's maritime industries is nothing short of scandulous. Historical trends in maritime trade have pushed us in the direction that we have taken over the past 20 or 30 years, and some would say that those trends extend much further back. There has suddenly been a shift in maritime trade from the west of Britain ports to the east coast ports and much of this has been brought about by the growing importance of the short sea trade—the trade between those east coast ports and continental Europe.
There has also been over the past 20 or 30 years a disastrous, deeply worrying shift from Scottish to English ports, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan. Until he mentioned the Clyde, I was beginning to think that here again we were listening to a debate concerning the Government's policy for the English ports. There seems to be little or no ministerial concern for the plight of the Scottish ports.
There are understandable reasons which partly explain the decline in the Scottish ports. I am not talking here about Aberdeen or some of the other ports in the north-east of Scotland which have benefited dramatically from the

development of the offshore gas and oil industries, but certainly other ports on the Forth and on the Clyde have suffered severely over the past 20 or more years.
Every day, Scottish goods are shifted to England by road and rail transport. Scottish cargo, including whisky, whether malt or blended—that is the best known cargo—knitwear, textiles, engineering products and goods produced by our burgeoning information technology industries, bypasses the ports on the Forth and Clyde and is shipped to places such as Felixstowe. That harms not only the Scottish ports on the Forth and Clyde but other industries in Scotland.
The only new cargo that has been offered to the Greenock container terminal in recent weeks has been the contaminated soil from the Faslane nuclear submarine base. An outlet had to be found for that soil so that the base could take the wasteful Trident programme. I am tempted to say that that soil should be shipped to English ports, but I am not that parochial or nationalistic.
The Government's ports policy may mean—if the Conservative Government survive this long, but recent signs are that they will not—that they will preside over the collapse and disappearance of most of the Scottish ports, and even Merseyside. What is the future of the ports on the Clyde and Forth? Will they eventually close? Will all or the major part of Scottish imports and exports pass through English ports? That has certainly been the trend during the past couple of decades.
Much of the coastal trade is carried on foreign vessels—in "foreign bottoms", according to the colloquial phrase. I believe that the state can play a major role in shaping developments in our maritime industries. Does the Secretary of State believe that the pattern of maritime trade that has evolved during the past two decades will remain as it is today, with an overwhelming emphasis on traffic moving through English ports?
I make a plea on behalf of the people employed by the Clyde port authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) also made this plea—and by the Forth ports authorities. Although it is essential that help should be given to Merseyside and London, the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues should not overlook the desperate plight of Scottish ports.

Mr. William Powell: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and to listen to him speak about Scottish affairs. I listened to him with considerable pleasure, bearing in mind that I represent more Scottish people than any other English Member of Parliament and, indeed, more Scottish people than many Scottish Members of Parliament.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. However, as someone who was born south of the border I have to correct what he said about the "little Scotland" in Corby.

Mr. Powell: I have no doubt whatsoever that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's observations on the future of Scottish ports. There are no more ingenious or inventive people than the Scots. They have gone to every corner of the earth and created prosperity there. I have


little doubt that if the dead hand of state control were to be removed from their endeavours, Scotland would enjoy the prosperity which its people so richly deserve. Of course they will need help to create that prosperity—that is why many of the hon. Gentleman's observations were of such value—but help does not mean state control. Nothing is more likely to ensure that Scottish ports have no future whatsoever than to arrange, by our legislative mechanism, for the Secretary of State, Ministers and Whitehall, far away from Scotland, to have a decisive influence upon what happens there.
The reason I welcome the Bill so wholeheartedly is that it will reduce the level of Government and Whitehall interference and control. Liberalisation and deregulation will make a real contribution to the future prosperity of our ports. In making that observation, I am conscious that little has been said about Scottish ports in this debate. The most prosperous ports in our land are situated on the east coast and in the southern part of England. Only a few years ago, they barely existed. They have grown up because of the demand for the services they provide.
The hon. Gentleman referred to traffic being transferred from Scottish ports to Felixtowe. I have no doubt that both he and others will have asked themselves why Felixtowe has become such an attractive port to so many people. Geography is one factor. The hon. Gentleman is in the unfortunate position of representing a constituency in a part of the country which a century ago was ideal for the trade which passed through the ports on the west coast of Scotland and England. Because of the switch of international trade to Europe, those ports are now on the wrong side of the country. Those areas which, 100 years ago, were far from prosperous and endured periods of considerable depression and poverty are now the most prosperous in our land, while those areas which, 100 years ago, were the most prosperous now find that they are in the opposite position.
I am not one of those who believe that the state has no role to play. Far from it. The state has a role to play, but at best it is a regulatory role. State control is unhelpful and has led to the accelerated decline of ports whose prosperity was so evident only a generation ago. For that reason, the provisions in the early clauses of the Bill are very welcome.
My right hon. Friend has many matters on his desk. I welcome the fact that, despite his many other responsibilities, which take up a considerable part of his time, he has devoted part of his time to bringing before the House this measure which will make a real contribution to the future of our ports.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I was somewhat intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) say that in his political ideology the state should have only a regulatory role. Corby has suffered more than most places from the decline of the steel industry. I have yet to hear the hon. Member criticise the substantial assistance which has properly been given to Corby by way of regional policy by both major parties after the ending of steel production. That is not a regulatory aspect of state activity. It is far more positive and against the spirit of one of the key clauses in the Bill.
This has been an unusual debate in that the Minister, who has the reputation in the House of being essentially a Treasury man parachuted into a spending Ministry,

determined to reduce expenditure at all costs, and who has followed that to the full with the bus industry, now comes to the House without a blink of an apology with a Bill the key clause of which increases public financial assistance to two major ports by £140 million in an open-ended commitment. He knows that he loyally follows a number of predecessors, because the casualty rate of Secretaries of State for Transport has been high in this Parliament. He follows a number of his colleagues who have put forward schemes for subvention. He said, with his hand on his heart, effectively, "This is the last such subvention. We believe that the industry will be able to stand on its own feet after the process has been completed."
There has hardly been a whimper from those Conservative Members who normally are so alert about such public expenditure, save perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) who made one or two sceptical noises earlier.
The hon. Member for Corby will no doubt have noted the removal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 which relates to the control of harbour developments. That was debated at length in the House on 19 June last year. The Secretary of State supports the removal of that section his proposition that it is an anachronism in a competitive industry. The points made during the debate on the order in June last year are still valid.
I wholly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said about the lack of strategy in the port industry. That is in part reinforced by the removal of that section. Surely the Government cannot maintain that in all circumstances a project involving substantial capital investment in the ports can be viewed on its own merits without seeking to examine its effects on the industry as a whole.
The Government appear to be saying, "If people are prepared to risk their money, so be it. Let market forces predominate." Even this Government, despite the way in which they have dismantled much regional policy since they came to power in 1979, maintain a regional policy, because they believe that if the ports were left entirely to market forces there would be substantial dislocation, with adverse social effects.
The Government are depriving themselves of what admittedly is only a last stop, but nevertheless, a means of placing decisions on port location and port investment in a wider context. There will now be no opportunity to exercises a wider national control or to examine any port investment decision in a wider regional context.
An example is the viability of the new port project at Falmouth, which may now be in doubt. Not unexpectedly, the promoters are still saying that it is going ahead. They are still optimistic. Can it be said that the development at Falmouth has no relevance to the national interest, and that the Government can simply say that if private promoter:; are prepared to risk their money, so be it? Obviously, it must have an effect on other ports, especially at a time of over-capacity and when that intended investment is aimed at ocean-going container ships and piggy-backing the imports to other ports.
Obviously, the project will also have an effect on infrastructure within that region. It is not enough to say that the local planning authority—Cornwall county council—exercise sufficient control. It will warn to attract as much private and public investment into its area as possible. But that investment has public investment implications. If the project goes ahead, it will no doubt be


said that the road pattern to Falmouth is inadequate and there will be pressure for an increase in road spending. If that road spending is not sufficient, there will be pressure for increased rail investment and section 8 grants.
Therefore, one private investment without any Government supervision will not only have an effect on other ports within that area, but will trigger off a substantial amount of public investment. Can it be said that the Government, exercising the national interest as they would have done under section 9 of the 1964 Act, have no proper role in such an investment decision? I believe that that is wrong and that anyone looking objectively at a major investment location decision will surely conclude that Government should have a role in considering such an investment in a wider national context.
My second point relates to the additional £140 million to finance the severance pay at London and Liverpool. Will the Minister clarify his remark to me that there is no element of subsidy in that? He said that the explanatory memorandum was loosely drafted and he implied that it did not say what he had intended it to say. That memorandum states that the effect of clause 2 is to raise
from £360 million to £500 million the ceiling on financial assistance
to those two ports
by grants, loans, and guarantees for measures to reduce manpower in their ports and"—
this is the key phrase—
for supporting them while such measures are being taken.
I concede the Minister's point that the wording of the Bill is the key factor, not the explanatory memorandum. However, is he seriously saying that those words in the explanatory memorandum have no meaning? If they have a meaning, what is it? Can it be other than that there is a subsidy to those two ports and that they are therefore receiving a form of assistance that is denied to other ports and making them that much more competitive than other ports?
I remind the Minister that other scheme ports contribute finance, for example, for the servicing of debt, much of which is used for the purposes of those two ports. All registered ports have to pay a levy that is now roughly £1,000 per annum per man. I think that my arithmetic is correct. There are roughly 12,000 dock workers and the Secretary of State said that the cost of the scheme is £12 million per annum.
All the operators within the registered ports have the burden of financing severance, but some are more favoured than others, and this has regional implications. A port such as mine in Swansea suffers from the same problems, albeit not on the same scale, as the PLA and the Mersey ports. We too are subject to the effects of the same recession.
My port has been heavily dependent on the steel industry and there has been a major decline in the manufacturing base of south Wales. Queen's dock in my constituency is virtually dependent on British Petroleum. Within the past few weeks, that company has announced the closure of its refinery at Llandarcy in my constituency. This is bound to have an effect on the port because ports are a service industry. They reflect the pattern and volume of industry and the health of industries in their areas. The recession hits ports outside the two favoured ports just as

much. They too will be affected by the same factors of over-capacity and the new technology of containerisation. I ask the Secretary of State to look carefully at this.
Have we not come to the point, in seeking to meet the problems of these two major ports, at which there can be adverse effects on the other ports, also in difficult parts of the country, that are suffering from the same factors, including the way that scheme ports are harmed by developments in unregistered wharves? These are developed alongside the scheme ports and have problems about safety. There are also concerns about the pensions available to the men and they are not burdened —properly burdened — with the obligations laid on the scheme ports.
Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the philosophy behind the Bill? Is it not going too far in the direction of favouring two ports at the expense of other ports, often in difficult regions and often facing the same problems?

Mr. Christopher Chope: I apologise for not having been able to be present at the Outset of the debate. I was detained upstairs in a meeting of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Any debate concerning ports is of interest to an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to rise in a debate on ports policy in a rather more hawkish frame of mind than I have on recent occasions.
There has been a great and welcome revival in the fortunes of the port of Southampton this year. That is due to good management, to a much better relationship with the work force and to an increase in realism, which has been sadly lacking in the past.
Last year, the troubles in the port resulted in a trading loss of £6.4 million. This year as a result of negotiations between management and work force, the total number employed in the port has been reduced from 2,400 to 1,400. That is sad, but in consequence there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the rates offered to people wishing to use the port, most of the port's principal customers have returned, and business is booming.
On 29 March, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made a speech at a lunch organised by the British Ports Association. It was reported in the Financial Times on 30 March. He referred to the fact that
British ports cost an average of 50 per cent. more for handling deepsea container cargoes than their Continental rivals",
according to research by his Department. He said that this had raised the costs of imports, resulted in lost export orders, and increased unemployment. It was also disclosed that negotiations were taking place between the National Association of Port Employers and the Government over the cost of the national dock labour scheme. The employers had argued that if the Government continued to refuse to scrap the scheme, which makes compulsory redundancies difficult, they should bear the costs.
There is little evidence in the Bill that the burden placed on the scheme ports is being reduced to any significant extent. I welcome clause 1, which will give a £10 million subsidy to the national dock labour scheme. The clause will stop that burden falling upon employers in the scheme ports. However, compared with the additional subsidy of £140 million referred to in clause 2—I look forward to


my hon. Friend's replies to the points made about that by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—it is pretty small beer and goes no way towards dealing with the principal complaint of scheme port employers—that a levy of about 10 to 13 per cent. is added to their costs because they belong to the scheme and carry the enormous burdens that it places upon them.
The port employers' chairman, Mr. Donald Stringer, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
It is one thing to know that we are to continue to be beaten but it adds insufferable insult to painful injury if we have to pay the cost of the beater and his overheads.
That feeling is shared by scheme port employers throughout the country and by those who work for them. The scheme adds to the costs of the ports and makes it more difficult for them to compete with other British and continental ports.
Many of the problems that the Bill seeks to address have been caused by the national dock labour scheme. I do not call for the abolition of that scheme, but it is clear that it is expensive, inflexible, outdated, and in need of major reform, if not abolition. The Bill does not deal with that problem.
The purpose of the scheme was to secure stability of employment for dock workers, and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work. In 1955, there were 81,000 registered dock workers. Today, there are 13,000. The scheme has failed to maintain the size of the labour force. It has also failed to provide a work force of a composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work.
Today, I received from the National Dock Labour Board figures for the numbers of people employed and the age groups into which they fall. There are 12,822 dockers on the register. Only 50 are aged under 25, 349 are between 25 and 29 and 994 are between 30 and 34. A grand total of 1,391 are under 35. I calculate that figure to represent less than 11 per cent. of the total, whereas 44 per cent. of the generally employed population are under 35. That shows the extent of the problem for scheme ports. They have the continuing burden of an aging work force and potentially large severance costs.
Moreover, this restrictive scheme denies entry to younger people. A young person who lives near Felixstowe can join a thriving port, but it is a non-scheme port, so, when he is taken on, the employer does not have to think about the consequences of employing him. It is rather different for scheme ports.
The national dock labour scheme has failed to achieve its declared objectives, and there are other elements of it about which I am deeply suspicious. I asked whether there is a guaranteed minimum rate of pay for dock workers and how much it is. I was told that there is no set national figure, but that it is agreed by the local joint council at each port. That is significant for both London and Liverpool. To what extent will the joint councils in those ports respond to the cold wind of competition if they are given the enormous additional subsidy outlined in the Bill?
I also asked about privileges for dock workers' children and was told that preference is sometimes shown to sons on the waiting list, again subject to local agreements. As somebody who believes in equality of opportunity of employment, I raise an eyebrow at the likelihood of preferential treatment being given to those whose fathers are dock workers.
I also asked about surplus labour in the ports of London, Liverpool and Southampton. The most recent available figures are for the last quarter of 1984. The average was 179 for London, 104 for Liverpool and 465 in the special circumstances of Southampton. The burden of those 465 was borne solely by employers in Southampton, yet there is to be a subsidy to London and Liverpool. If they are subsidised, others will be disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that it is a pity that section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 is to be repealed and he said that the Government should be involved in the control of harbour development. That was the attitude of the Transport and General Workers Union in Southampton last summer when I met one of its officials to discuss the threat from Falmouth. I told him that the best way in which to beat off that threat was to increase efficiency in Southampton. Yet he told me that there was no way in which he could increase efficiency in Southampton and reduce costs. I am glad to say that that official has been proved wrong by what has happened since. We have been able to be more efficient and to reduce our costs by 25 per cent.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the Falmouth project may now be in jeopardy, but he must accept that one reason for that is that Southampton is now a thriving competitor. A prospective investor might not think it worthwhile to invest in Falmouth when he can see a well-established, thriving port just up the road in Southampton.
For those reasons, I welcome the Bill and, although I have reservations about it, I shall, if necessary, support it in the Lobby tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the Bill and hon. Members in all parts of the House have made interesting contributions. Rather than repeat what my right hon. Friend said at the outset, I shall deal with the points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that he was not proposing to divide the House, and I was glad to hear that. He has adopted a sensible approach, showing that on many issues we need not have strident division. In other words, there are areas in which there is agreement and about which there is no reason to create artificial disagreement.
As the hon. Gentleman went on to develop his speech, there was much with which I could not agree, and he will not be surprised to hear that. He referred to drastic reductions in manpower, particularly in Liverpool and the port of London, and he illustrated the decline of the ports industry. He claimed that it was all because the Government had no strategy.
I assure the House that the Government have a strategy. It is based on the recognition that, as a trading island, reliant for jobs in manufacturing and service industries on our ability to get goods in and out of the country at the minimum cost, we have an overwhelming national need to ensure that the disadvantages of being an island—in terms of our ability to compete, particularly in continental markets—are minimised. For that reason, we must have ports which are as cost-effective as possible, so enabling


us to get goods in and out of the country effectively and efficiently, with the quick turnround of ships and the safe movement of cargo.
There are areas besides the handling of ships which impose costs and burdens on goods coming into and going out of the country. They include the cost of pilotage, a problem which the Government have sought to tackle in a recently published Green Paper, in connection with which we are consulting on major reforms in the archaic system which governs pilotage in this country. There is also the area of lights. A major report has just come into our hands on what we should do about the burden of lights, which are perhaps unfairly distributed as between one vessel and another.
Thus, for the hon. Member for Wigan to talk about our not having a strategy is wrong. Our strategy is designed to ensure that we do the best possible for the many people whose jobs depend upon our being competitive in international markets. That means cost-effective movements through our ports.
The hon. Gentleman gave his alternative strategy. He said that he wanted to see planning, and he demonstrated that, I thought helpfully, by describing the Scotch whisky trade. He said that instead of the whisky being loaded from Glasgow, it was sent to Felixstowe for export. That was a very good illustration of the divide in the House on these matters. We would say that that whisky should go by whatever means its owners found to be most competitive in selling it abroad. The hon. Gentleman thinks that it should go by a planned system which would ensure that it went out through the Clyde by ship. As it would probably be destined for somewhere on the continent, it would have to go round this island before reaching its port of destination. That would add so much to the cost of the whisky that orders would be lost. That would mean not only that there would be no jobs for people on the Clyde, but that people in the whisky trade would lose their jobs because their product was not competitive in the markets in which people were trying to sell it. That is the sort of madness that would come from the planned system which the hon. Gentleman seeks to visit on us.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I shall cover the points made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) if he will give me time.
The hon. Member for Wigan opposes the Felixstowe expansion scheme. It is not for me to comment on that today. He said that he would be visiting there tomorrow, and that he would also be visiting Ipswich. I hope that he will see the Transport and General Workers Union representatives in both ports, as I have done, and not just the union representatives in one of them, so that he can get the pure flavour of their views.
The hon. Gentleman went on to attack the possible development of Falmouth, on the grounds that it might justify investment in road construction and in railways. Those are odd grounds on which to attack the idea. I had thought that there were other reasons which he might have used.
I do not know whether Falmouth is the right place for a port to be developed. That is for potential investors and the management to form a judgement on. However, a major transformation is beginning in the movement of

international container cargo. Huge vessels are going round the world with the minimum number of stops. They will make one stop in Europe. It may be—I do not know; it is for the investors to judge—that if there were a transhipment port somewhere on the south coast—perhaps Southampton, Falmouth or some other place—it would attract all of that transhipment trade. Therefore, the employment would come to this country rather than go to Le Havre or another European port with us being missed out. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to wear blinkers when considering the possibilities that are opened up by new investment.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that ports had been privatised at too low a price but in the same breath he said that there was a surplus of capacity. I cannot think of a better way of the hon. Gentleman shooting his argument in the foot.
The hon. Gentleman also said that a Labour Government would go for interventionist policies. He illustrated that by saying that the ending of Government control had led to the loss of jobs in west coast ports and consequential gains on the south coast and the east coast. It is not the Government's ending of controls, but rather the movement of trade, which has led to that. It is the fact that continental markets have been opened up. Our trade is increasingly into Europe. Therefore, it must follow logically that it takes the short sea route from the east coast direct to the continental ports. The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that one can expect to be competitive by shipping cargo from the west coast of this country into continental ports. That would destroy the prospect of those goods ever being sold. They would become uncompetitive because of the burdens which the right hon. Gentleman would add by the cost of transport. Transport is a very important part of the cost of delivery of goods and of our being competitive in world markets.
I respect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) for his intimate knowledge of the port of Liverpool. I believe I am right in saying that he worked in that port for just short of 30 years. He referred to the national dock labour scheme as having been founded by Ernest Bevin, that great man of my old union, the Transport and General Workers Union. Many have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman's approach to trade union matters. He referred to the inequity of the former casual labour system, and I join him in his condemnation of it. When going around the ports I have met no one who would seek to bring it back. There are good Transport and General Workers Union members who work in non-scheme ports and who can demonstrate that one does not need to have a scheme to put an end to casualisation.
The hon. Gentleman said that, in his view, it was the clear intention of the Secretary of State to end the scheme. The Government have no plans to change or abolish the national dock labour scheme. However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a glimpse of reality when he said that we should plan ports so that they are spread around the country where the trade is. It is "where the trade is" that is the glimpse of reality. The problem is that the trade has moved from the west coast ports—from Glasgow, the Clyde, Liverpool and Manchester—to the east coast ports. The fact that one must have ports where the trade is provides the reason for the reduction in the amount of cargo going through the west coast ports.
The hon. Gentleman believes that if Liverpool won a large new service the port could not take it on because of the shortage of labour. Is it not ironic that at a time when there is so much unemployment in Merseyside, the hon. Gentleman, representing a Liverpool constituency, can get up and say that he believes that the port could not take on extra work if it were available? I do not take as unhappy a view, because my reading of the recent report of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is that it could, and would, willingly seek to take on considerable extra work. Therefore, I do not take as despondent a view, though the hon. Gentleman does do so. If the company would not dare to take on a contract because of a lack of labour when so many people are unemployed, that shows that it is because people cannot be asked to leave that others are not being recruited. Potentially, that is preventing jobs being created.
The hon. Gentleman referred to scheme ports withering on the vine because the non-scheme ports are free from the penalties of history. We should all recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has recognised, and as the experience of the unfortunate major strike in Southampton last year illustrated, that when we are talking about the penalties of history and the penalties of restrictive practices that go with it, those are things that men and management can tackle if they are determined to do so. They can break through and shed the shackles of history so that they can complete successfully for trade. in the way that Southampton is now winning back trade which, for some time, it was thought it would never succeed in resecuring.
In an intervention in the speech by the hon. Member for Wigan, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to unfair competition from subsidised continental ports. I agree that there is an area that is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently given notice to one of the EEC Commissioners of our concern about state aids for port infrastructure. He is actively considering how we should pursue that matter in the European Community. It is linked with the area of shipping policy on which the Community is taking a new initiative and, more directly, with the treaty requirements concerning state aids. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to it, and we are pursuing this at present.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described the London area's need for goods, and he wants to maximise the commercial use of the river. He and I may have some glimpse of what it could be, and a great sense of loss of what it is not. Here in the capital city there is a huge requirement for an enormous amount of stuff that is imported into the country, yet it lands at Felixstowe on the east coast and is dragged all the way along our road system to London. The simple reason for that is that London is not competitive. If London would get its act together, it would be the natural place into which all those goods should come.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman would not wish, and I certainly would not wish, to impose a requirement on people to send their goods in through the estuary and through the Port of London Authority if that were not the most economic way of doing it. His constituents would not thank him if the cost of the commodities that they bought in the shops had a loaded 2p or 3p on each item to pay for the extra cost of moving goods in less than the most economic way.
I therefore have to say to the hon. Gentleman that. unlike the Opposition Front Bench, who seem to have learnt nothing, we have a vision. It is not a vision of directing cargo to go to one port or another because that is what the planners think is good for people, but a vision in which that port gets its act together to the point at which it is the most attractive place for goods to come. A great deal more cargo ought to be coming into London, because it is the natural place and has all these advantages, but this will never happen until it can become an efficient and attractive place into which people can bring their cargo.
We have been seeking to strengthen the board of the Port of London Authority. We have appointed new members to it, who bring with them a breadth of business experience. Recently we have appointed a new chairman, Sir Brian Kellett. I am confident that, when he has become embedded in his new job, considerable progress will be seen, in a way that we would both wish, in London receiving its proper share of the cargo that is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) exposed some of the petty conflicts in the port of Bristol. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) are worried about the way in which the PLA and Merseyside are given special provisions and favoured by the Bill, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. They referred in particular to the generosity of the finance that is available on severance of non-registered dock workers. I understand their concern. We have announced today that we intend to phase out for these two ports the extra assistance for non-registered dock workers' severance costs. That is an important indication that we are moving in the way that my hon. Friends seek.
I was asked when the drip feed from the Treasury would come to an end. I can say only that there is no firm date, but we are moving perceptibly in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen made a perceptive speech which I do not have time to cover in the depth that it warrants. Clause 1 is designed to move in the direction in which he seeks to go in beginning to mitigate the disadvantages of the burden of the scheme.
This is a small, useful Bill which I believe can do a little to help in a number of ways. It provides further funds to Merseyside and the Port of London Authority. It makes available limited resources to help scheme ports. It takes useful steps to reduce the burdens on trust ports, and finally formalises the end of section 9. I believe that it should be welcomed as a small step towards fairer competition in the ports industry. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PORTS (FINANCE) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ports (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for marking grants (not in the aggregate exceeding £40 million) to the National Dock Labour Board in respect of costs incurred by the Board for the purpose of reducing the number of registered dock workers; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys or into the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to


increasing the limit in section 1(3) of the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 from £360 million to £500 million. [Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 2nd April. be approved.
The law in Northern Ireland, in common with that of other developed legal systems, contains limitation periods for the bringing of civil actions, so as to prevent stale claims. Actions in respect of contracts and debts, for example, must generally be brought within six years of the events which give rise to the action; actions in tort within six years, or three years in personal injury cases; and actions involving land within 12 years. The law of limitation in Northern Ireland corresponds to the law in England and Wales; the law of Scotland is distinct.
But it may happen that under the established rules of private international law — which have been evolved from the common law in relation to both England and Wales and Northern Ireland — a court in Northern Ireland is called upon to apply the law of a foreign country. I shall try to illustrate this with a simple example. A Northern Ireland importer agrees to buy goods from a French manufacturer under a contract governed by French law. A dispute arises in respect of the goods, and proceedings are instituted in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland court applies French law.
In such a case as the one that I have illustrated, the French limitation period may well appear to have relevance in the proceedings which are substantially governed by French law. But, in essence, under the present rule of private international law in Northern Ireland whether or not the Northern Ireland court applies a foreign limitation period depends in turn upon whether the court classifies the foreign limitation as a matter of substance or merely as a matter of procedure. If the court regards the limitation as a matter of substance, it will apply the foreign period; but if it regards the matter as merely one of procedure it will apply the Northern Ireland period.
The English Law Commission examined the rule in its report No. 114 and found it wanting. The rule was based on a highly technical and perhaps artificial distinction between matters of substance and procedure; it had created a number of anomalies; and it was inconsistent both with the private international law of many other countries and with the European Community Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
The Law Commission's report was implemented, in relation to England and Wales, in the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The order does likewise in relation to Northern Ireland, thus ensuring that the private international law of Northern Ireland remains the same as that of England and Wales.
The essence of the Law Commission's recommendations, contained in article 3 of the order, is that, where under the established rules of private international law the substantive foreign law applies in a particular case, the rule of that same foreign law which relates to limitation should also be applied, rather than the Northern Ireland law of limitation.
Article 4 contains three exceptions to the rule, the most important of which concerns public policy. Where in a


particular case the court determines that the application of the limitation period prescribed under the foreign law would be contrary to public policy, it may refrain from applying the foreign period.
The order is quite legally complex. I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a lawyer and he will no doubt look upon it with a lawyer's eye. However, I am grateful for the support which the order received from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which considered it with the benefit of submissions from the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. All of them supported this change. Thus, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. The Minister anticipated my enjoyment when he referred to the fact that I am a barrister. As a barrister I have looked very carefully at the order. I have also looked at the order very carefully as a legislator. The legislator must be eternally vigilant. The barrister must be vigilant too, but in the sense of protecting not the nation but his client, whether plaintiff or defendant.
As a barrister I have welcomed this stroll back in time through the doctrines of renvoi — quaintly called "tortuous reasoning" by a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There are also in this order the rules of private international law, lex fori and lex causae—rules which are prosaic or exotic, esoteric or essential, depending upon whether one is a plaintiff or a defendant.
The realms of international law are not as complicated or as bureaucratic as those of the former Chancery—by which we are all being entertained in "Bleak House" on BBC Television. They may not be as expensive as libel actions brought against the BBC and the "That's Life" team, but they can be costly and lengthy all the same. The weaknesses brought to light in Great Britain by the Law Commission, while they may be rectified by the order, may in time reveal other weaknesses which will also have to be purged from the statute book.
Reverting briefly to the role of the legislator, I congratulate all those in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have scrutinised this order in accordance with section 3(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. They have rendered the House a signal service and in a sense done a great deal of work for us.
I read with some amusement the verbatim record of the evidence taken by members of the Finance and Personnel Committee on Thursday 11 October 1984 from witnesses well versed in the highways and byways of private international law who were from the Office of Law Reform. I can sympathise with the statement of the deputy chairman of the Committee, who admitted that there were some of his members whose knowledge of legal matters was somewhat elementary but who had no doubt been enlightened on the subject. It is to be hoped that some of our colleagues have been and will be enlightened by this short debate tonight and that more will be enlightened when they avidly read the pages of Hansard, which I am sure that many hon. Members do, certainly as they relate to debates on Northern Ireland. I am sure that that is how they stay in touch.
I note that the deputy chairman requested submissions from a whole host of authoritative bodies in Northern Ireland, included among which was the Irish Congress of

Trade Unions. There is no evidence of a reply. I presume that they were preoccupied at the time with the future of the town gas industries—and no doubt we shall be getting round to a debate on that subject at another time in the House.
The Finance and Personnel Committee was thorough in its work and therefore, as I have said, rendered a signal service to the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as to Members of the House, and they should be congratulated on that. It highlights once again the importance of the Assembly and the useful work that it can do on behalf of the citizens of Northern Ireland even when dealing with an item of legislation as abstruse as the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
The heart of the order, as the Minister has already indicated, is the new rule, already incorporated in legislation covering England and Wales. Mercifully we are not also discussing Scotland tonight. The rule states that where a foreign law falls to be applied in a Northern Ireland court the rule of that same foreign law which relates to the limitation should also be applied, and not the Northern Ireland law of limitation. It occurred to me immediately on reading that that it might cause damage to plaintiffs rather than assist them or cause benefits to accrue to them. For a plaintiff might be damaged in the pursuit of his claim if the limitation period in the foreign law were shorter than the limitation period in Northern Ireland. That may be a complex point and it may read better then the way I have put it. We must bear in mind that there are different and differing limitation periods throughout the EEC.
I was somewhat assuaged in my anxiety when I read the background paper by the Office of Law Reform on the draft Foreign Limitation Periods Order, which seemed to indicate that this difference had been taken care of by article 4(2) which provides that the application of foreign limitation periods
shall conflict with public policy to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship to … a party to the … proceedings.
The example of undue hardship that was given was one where the foreign limitation period was extremely long compared with the Northern Ireland limitation. In such a case, the court might take the view that it would cause undue hardship to a defendant to have the threat of an action hanging over him for an excessive period—the concept in law of the so-called stale claim.
Conversely—this is the point that originally exercised my mind—in different circumstances a court might take the view that a foreign limitation period that was escessively short caused undue hardship to a plaintiff.
All this is not, of course, in the order. It is an interpretation which a judge must make. He must decide the appropriate definition of hardship. I cannot ask the Minister to alter that tonight. I cannot ask that the English and Welsh law should be changed tonight. I cannot ask for the Law Commission to make a further reference back to the Chancellor, because that can be done only if the Chancellor wishes. This is the concept of functus officio. Unless the Lord Chancellor refers the matter back to the Law Commission for further and better particulars and advice, the Law Commission has no status. It will be left, therefore, to the enterprise of the Bar, to the skill of the barrister on behalf of his client, plaintiff or defendant, to


drive that point home in the Irish court of law or in arbitration proceedings. It will be for the judges or the arbitrators to understand and take that on board.
With these fine legal points I have completed the circuit of private international law, statutes of limitations, lex fori, lex causae, renvoi and the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order. I therefore follow the Government in commending the order to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I first congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the substantial and tasty meal that he has made out of this order. It need be no secret from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that throughout this afternoon and evening my hon. Friends and I have been anxiously approached by other hon. Members desirous of knowing the likely duration of the proceedings on this order and the order that is to follow and whether any events would require their presence. We have assured them—or, if they had spared the time to listen, we would have assured them — that it is not our fault that they are being troubled in this Way, that we are on their side and that it is very much our contention that these are procedures with which the House should not be troubled; and that in the interest equally of Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom.
The Minister of State observed that the law of Northern Ireland in this respect corresponds with that of England and Wales. None of us would dream of saying that an alteration such as that which was made by the statute of last year in the law in England and Wales should not correspondingly apply in Northern Ireland. To that extent, we welcome the order. We have no intention of resisting its passage. We must take the opportunity to draw attention to the absurdity of the operation in which the House is engaged.
I have in my left hand the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, applying to England and Wales, which was passed last year by the House, and in my right hand I have the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I have examined them quite zealously and, except for the necessary references in the Act to England and Wales and in the order to Northern Ireland, they are to all intents and purposes identical—as, indeed, they ought to be. Therefore, the question naturally arises: why, when we enacted in 1984, did we not enact at the same time for that part of the United Kingdom in which the law on the subject is and ought to remain the same?
When we made observations upon that point, my hon. Friends and I used to be reminded of an imaginary thing called the statute book of Northern Ireland which had to be maintained in its pristine integrity. In order that it may retain that integrity, whatever is done in England and Wales that ought to be done in Northern Ireland has to be done separately for Northern Ireland by an Order in Council. However, in this case, as in many of the other examples that we have examined, that will not wash, for in article 4(4) we find a reference to something which will not be found upon any real or imaginary statute book of Northern Ireland, namely, the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945.
I consulted the statutes at large and ascertained that that Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the House is being troubled with an order so that the separateness of the code of law that applies to Northern Ireland may be maintained, yet this order is having to appeal to the text of an Act of the United Kingdom to which the same procedure was not applied—an Act of the United Kingdom, incidentally, that was passed when there was still a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland.
It would be wrong for my hon. Friends and I not to complain once again of the arrant and useless waste of effort and time that is involved in this sort of complication. It is a waste of skilled manpower. Drafting work is duplicated. It is also a waste of resources, of the time of the House and of the effort of all the officials who are concerned. It might be thought that this wasteful procedure is being maintained simply for the purpose of irritating hon. Members, including my hon. Friends and myself. It used to be argued, although the argument is wearing threadbare, that in order that Northern Ireland might drift off or be pushed off into another political connection there ought to be loaded on to it, as this House legislates, separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Then it could sail away with its code of law complete, not to mention the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945. For such causes is this House invited to do such absurd things.
Although the application of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 to Northern Ireland is necessary and right, it is a wasteful and stupid absurdity against which my hon. Friends and I are bound to protest. It is absurd that tonight the House is being troubled unnecessarily with what could have been accomplished equally well, sooner and more efficiently within the ambit of the 1984 Act.

Dr. Boyson: I have listened carefully to the points made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). On his point as to whether the foreign limitation period is excessively long or excessively short, if the court decides that in the public interest it is excessively long or short, action can be taken under the law of Northern Ireland. I welcome the general comments of the hon. Member.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) expressed the view that he holds about this procedure. I am not being drawn into that argument this evening. I know the integrity with which he holds that view. He has expressed it on a number of occasions.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I assure the Minister that all my hon. Friends—present and absent—share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).

Dr. Boyson: I welcome that intervention. I do not doubt that that is so. I referred to the right hon. Gentleman because only he had spoken. It would be difficult to refer to 635 people if all hon. Members agreed about something. I hope that on this occasion when there are only nine or 10 of us here we can agree to the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
One needs to be a quick change artist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the orders being brought forward as quickly as this.
The order deals with escapes of water from mains and pipes belonging to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which is the sole water authority there. It would, except in certain circumstances, make the Department of the Environment strictly liable for loss or damage resulting from escapes of water onto agricultural or forestry land from a water main or service pipe belonging to the Department.
Until recent years, water authorities throughout the United Kingdom were liable to compensate only for loss or damage resulting from an escape of water caused by a water authority's negligence. Property owners, however, could insure against loss or damage caused by escapes of water from water mains, but it has always been extremely difficult, throughout the United Kingdom, to insure agricultural or forestry land against that.
Following many years of pressure from farming and land interests in England and Wales, section 6 was added in Committee in the House of Lords to what is now the Water Act 1981. It creates a liability, which is not confined to agricultural or forestry land, on English or Welsh water authorities for loss or damage caused by all escapes of water from water authority mains. That provision was included after a promise made on Report in this House.
As often happens when proposed legislation is amended at a late stage, the effect of the coverage given was not fully realised. Because of the breadth of cover provided, water authorities have found themselves having to pay large sums of money to persons who would, in the normal course of events, have no difficulty in obtaining insurance against the risks covered by the legislation.
In 1982–83, over £14 million was paid by water authorities in England and Wales. Of that, only £100,000 was for damage to agricultural and forestry land. In 1983–84, the figures were nearly £2 million and just over £80,000 respectively. The money went to people whose agricultural or forestry land had been damaged by water from burst water mains. The effect has therefore been that in each of those years less than 5 per cent. of the money paid has been going to the bodies whose difficulties originally raised the need for legislation.
In addition, it has been discovered that of the compensation paid probably as much as 80 per cent. is paid to insurance companies through injured parties, or direct. The beneficiaries of section 6 of the Water Act 1981 have therefore been insurance companies and the losers have been the payers of water rates.
Inquiries of those companies have revealed that the provision of legislative cover has had no effect on the premiums payable for damage caused by water. The vast

majority of claims against insurance companies for water damage are as a result of burst pipes or overflowing systems within property or floods from rivers overflowing.
I repeat that it should be kept in mind that the cost of meeting these claims, as with all other costs, is in fact borne by the consumers either through the rate bill or by direct charges.
The Water Act 1981 did not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, but it was indicated in Parliament at that time that the law in those two countries would be changed in due course, although there has not been a lobby for it in Northern Ireland.
Scottish legislation was enacted in section 57 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. It was wisely more tightly drawn, and it confined its cover to those suffering loss or damage resulting from an escape of water on to agricultural or foresty land; that is, to those who could not normally obtain insurance cover.
In bringing foward the amendment to the Northern Ireland water legislation, we propose to follow the Scottish rather than the English path and to deal specifically with the problem which first gave rise to this legislation, that is, the uninsurability of agricultual and forestry land against water damage risk.
The draft order was considered by the Environment Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and was debated in the Assembly. The report of the Assembly recommending no change to the proposal was laid before this House on 19 December 1984, and all of us will have seen that report.
Prior to the laying of the order before this House, a number of Northern Ireland hon. Members made representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to follow the English rather than the Scottish legislation. Among the 30 non-governmental bodies consulted on the legislation, only one made that representation. I can well understand why hon. Members made that representation. They were desirous that the law in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in England. It will be the same as that in Scotland—a country which has had close links with Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland, has communicated with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has agreed to consider whether there should be a change in the English and Welsh law on the lines of the Scottish law.
I stress that the unexpected results of the England and Wales legislation have put money into the pockets of the insurance companies at the expense of the payers of water rates. They take up with the authorities damage done to their client's property by burst water mains and collect the costs from the water authority despite having themselves received premiums to cover such liabilities.
As one who believes in personal responsibility and containment of Government expenditure, I support the move to the present Scottish system and not the England and Wales system, especially bearing in mind that the England and Wales system is being reconsidered.
I must also stress that the order does nothing to remove the existing rights of individuals to pursue claims against the Department if it is negligent. On the contrary, it provides cover for a section of the community which has difficulty in insuring against damage which may be caused by escapes of water from the Department's water pipes. If this order is not passed tonight, the holders of


agricultural and forestry land in Northern Ireland will be at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland.
As hon. Members are anxious to raise points on the order, I shall not go through the articles one by one, unless hon. Members so desire. It is the general theme of the order that concerns us, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has indicated, the order has its roots in section 6 of the Water Act 1981, which relates to England and Wales. When we ask that the same law be applied to Northern Ireland as to England and Wales, we are at least consistent. We are asking only for the principle that has already been followed to everyone's advantage.
I appreciate that this matter has caused some difficulty for water authorities in England and Wales, but that is not a good argument for suggesting that the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland should be deprived of a benefit that, perhaps, is more widespread than the Government may like but that would be of real benefit to some people in the community.
When the corresponding legislation for Scotland was being discussed, I noted from Hansard that, while the Labour party was anxious to support such legislation for England and Wales, it took the opposite view for Scotland, and did so on not particularly good grounds. The grounds were that there is a different set-up for water authorities in Scotland, where councils were the responsible body, and they could not afford the extra burden. I rather fear that the Labour party was taking that line on the advice of the councils in Scotland rather than on published figures, because it is difficult to get hard and fast figures on the cost of the application of section 6.
When the order was first published in September, I noticed that Northern Ireland was not being treated as England and Wales were. I asked what the effect of this difference in the law was, as I am of an inquiring mind. I wrote to the Minister and asked for his observations, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) I went to see the Minister. Despite the representations that we made forcefully and clearly, the order was published, and we are now discussing it.
A number of points have to be made about this order. As a general principle, we should try to have all public utilities on the same footing one with another throughout the United Kingdom, because they are all providing a public service to the community.
The water authorities have an absolute statutory duty laid on them to provide water to private individuals, and therefore Parliament has, over the years, given them the right to lay pipes where ever it is necessary to provide the water supply. If an individual builds his house alongside a major water main, he is accepting the risk inherent in that, because water under pressure is a pretty potent instrument if it gets out. However, if the high pressure watermain is laid alongside an already existing house, that risk was not there, the individual does not want it, and it is being imposed on him. On that ground alone, I would have thought that the water authorities have a powerful moral reason to provide compensation to an individual whose property is damaged by a burst watermain. However, the individual does not have that right now,

unless negligence can be proven, and will not have it in Northern Ireland even if the order goes through. On the other hand, he can get compensation automatically in England and Wales.
Until section 6 of the Water Act came into force, the water authorities could not insure, and therefore they did not have the legal liability to compensate those whose property was damaged. Since the passing of the Water Act, surely the water authorities can insure that they have a legal liability to compensate. Cannot the water authorities in Northern Ireland insure themselves against damages? Has that possibility been explored?
In the debate in the other place on these issues, it was said that everybody paid water rates, and therefore all would be contributing to any compensation that was paid. It may well be that the system in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales, but the system in Northern Ireland differs from both. In Northern Ireland we all have to pay for the water that we consume. We are all metered. We all make payments to what is in effect a Government body. I can see no good reason why the burden for the damage suffered should not be spread among the water consumers rather than that the Department of the Environment should have to find extra money. Perhaps that is a suggestion that should have been considered.
I remember that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), then the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said in this House that the Government believed that the Water Bill had been greatly improved by the inclusion of clause 6. Something must have happened since then. Perhaps it was the harsh light of experience that made the Government change their mind. The Government should be trying to claw back. They should not be depriving the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and indeed the insurance companies there, of the benefits that they should enjoy. Surely they have as much right to the money for compensation as the people 'of England and Wales.
One of the excuses made in the other place with regard to Scotland was that there was simply not enough time to consult all the interested parties. There has certainly been time to consult interested parties in this case, and efforts have been made to do so.
I believe that the Government have not proceeded correctly. I would have preferred them to follow the English and Welsh legislation. A mistake made in one place could perhaps then have been remedied across the board when a suitable opportunity occurred.
The report by the Northern Ireland Assembly was an astonishing document, produced after an astonishing investigation by the environment committee and the Assembly.
The Assembly was satisfied, and it welcomed the Scottish standards. The agriculture committee of the Assembly was satisfied too. I am sorry that neither of the chairmen of those committees is present this evening. They might have been able to tell us, and the people of Northern Ireland, why they took such peculiar decisions.
The Ulster Farmers' Union was satisfied. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association was asked, apparently, and did not reply. The Department of the Environment was satisfied. The general public in Northern Ireland was not consulted by the Assembly. They had no opportunity to put their view. Apparently, one body


consulted asked for the English and Welsh procedure to be followed. Could the Minister tell us what it was? Whatever it was, that body showed a wee bit of wit.
The Assembly stated that it was grateful to all the bodies that had assisted in the preparation of the report. Let us think about those bodies. Why should the Ulster Farmers Union not have been satisfied? It asked only about the agricultural aspect, and the agricultural aspect was met. The union was not worried about the domestic householder. It is not clear whether the Agricultural Producers Association was satisfied, as it did not reply. The Department of the Environment was satisfied. It told the Assembly what the Assembly wanted to hear.
The one person who could suffer from the bursting of a massive pipe was the domestic individual, and his interests were not protected.
Many years ago, when I represented the city of Londonderry, the water main to the city burst in the middle of a housing estate occupied by people who, at best were poorly paid and, for the most part, were unemployed. We should try to protect such people who, perhaps because of age, sickness or poverty, are unable to insure themselves and therefore suffer considerable personal loss. The houses were built across the hill in fairly long blocks, and some had 3 and 4 ft of water in them. A large water main with, in this case, 500 ft of head behind it, can shove out an awful lot of water in a short time. Such people get hurt, as they get no compensation from anybody and they are those who can least afford it. It is no excuse to say that insurance is available, as it is not always in force, for the reasons that I have given.
The Assembly also noted that Parliament was assured that the law would be reformed in Scotland and Ireland. I have not managed to lay my eyes on the relevant Hansard of this House, the other place or the Scottish Grand Committee, although I assume that it will be of this House. I should like to know whether Parliament was told then that the law for Scotland and Ireland would not be the same as that then being passed for England and Wales. If the House had been told, I feel that many more questions would, or should, have been asked.
The Assembly was worried about the effect on public expenditure. That might come as a surprise to some people. There is a means of spreading the compensation burden evenly, because all consumers are metered. Why did the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee in the Assembly and the Assembly in general allow the order to pass without challenge?
The Assembly said that it recognised the extent of the Scottish and of the English and Welsh legislation. I believe that that is not an accurate reflection of what happened. I cannot believe that anybody explained the practical effects to the members of those Committees, or to the Assembly. Officials in the Department of the Environment did not tell them, and the Minister did not tell them. Unfortunately, nobody in those Committees thought to ask the right question. The agriculture bodies were happy, as they got what they wanted, but nobody spelt out to members of the Assembly what the result would be.
I have no doubt that the Minister with responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland was told of the effect. I believe that his civil servants advised him, even if he had not the wit to spot it himself. Members of the Assembly and its Committees were not

told, as the Minister would have been told, because the Assembly is served by civil servants who are not responsible to it or paid by it.
In other words, the brief was prepared by civil servants who were responsible to the Minister and to the interests of the Department, rather than to the interests of the Assembly. The order seemed fairly harmless, at worst, and, at best, helpful to the agricultural community. That is why I am glad that we are in this House. We can act as a longstop and ask the questions that were not asked in the Assembly.
The Department of the Environment presented to the Assembly a long letter which contained a statement that I should like to have clarified. The Department pointed out
that the regional water authorities in England and Wales who are responsible for sewerage also undertake prosecutions.
Can those bodies undertake prosecutions against the Crown?
The question of the treatment of sewage occupied the Assembly when considering the order. I shall be writing a lengthy letter to the Minister tomorrow about the Kilrea sewerage works. We corresponded on the subject a year ago, but a serious problem remains. The sewage has been troubling people for years and it seems that the Department of the Environment is falling flat on its face.
That is the sort of matter with which the Assembly concerned itself. It did not worry about the domestic property that would be damaged and the problems that would be caused to the people living in that property.
The Department said in its letter to the Assembly that the whole matter would be reported to the water council. What can that council do about reports that are presented to it? I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has joined us, because he was prominent whenever section 6 of the Water Act was being debated. I trust that he will support us tonight. What can the water council do about bad sewerage works in Northern Ireland?
We are discussing an important matter because it raises the question whether all citizens of the United Kingdom shall be treated alike, shall stand equally before the law and have the same benefits, or whether some shall be treated differently.
The Labour party failed in its representations on behalf of Scotland, having argued one case for the people of England and Wales and another for the people of Scotland. The Government failed to protect the people of Scotland and are failing to protect the interests of the domestic sufferers in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will not be long before these matters are corrected.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is wonderful how a lesson gets inculcated, first one way and then another. The second order which the House is considering returns to the theme of the first yet approaches it from a different and novel angle.
It is a pretty pickle that has been committed by the Government which the House is invited to contemplate tonight. Before 1981, the code of law in all parts of the United Kingdom in these matters was the same. In that year, the Department of the Environment in England and Wales, for reasons unconnected with the matter which is under discussion, decided to go ahead on its own, and had its own Water Bill for England and Wales.
Into that Bill was inserted under persuasion in both Houses a clause which was ill-considered, of which the


consequences were not foreseen and which the Government had reason to regret. Before long it was discovered that as a result of that provision £14.5 million a year was being paid out to unintended recipients, mostly in the form of insurance companies, to alleviate the burdens and obligations that they had undertaken in the policies that they had written.
So the Government wondered what to do. One might think that the simple thing to do would be to amend the Water Act 1981 and to remove the disastrous and offending section. But then there is a saying, much current in Treasury circles, that one cannot take butter out of a dog's mouth. The proposition of introducing a Bill into the House of Commons to amend the Water Act 1981 by deleting section 6 did not commend itself, surprisingly enough, to the managers of Government business, to the Whips or to those who might have been expected to ensure that that legislation got through.
So since 1981 the Water Act for England and Wales has been left severely alone to go on its riotous course, subsidising the insurance companies, but it occurred to the Government that they had still to deal with the other parts of the United Kingdom. They took Scotland first. They had a favourable course there, because whereas in England and Wales the sufferers, mainly the water authorities, are impersonal and not very popular bodies, in Scotland the water authorities were none other than the elected county councils which, as we all know, are so popular that everybody is anxious to take part in the relevant parts of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming elections to return even more worthy representatives to those bodies. The Government got away with it in Scotland and they succeeded in passing a Scottish water measure without the blemish which had unhappily been allowed to disfigure the England and Wales Act.
Then, of course, there was left Northern Ireland. "Easy," said the Government. "We do not have to legislate for Northern Ireland. We do not have the embarrassment of having to bring in a Bill and pass it through all its stages. Goodness knows what trouble there might be when people discovered what we were up to. We can do it by an Order in Council. That is how we legislate on transferred subjects for Northern Ireland. So we will just produce an order on the lines of the Scottish measure, without the blemish of section 6 of the Water Act 1981. If they do not like it, they will have to lump it because that is what Orders in Council are about."
It turned out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, that by some strange inadvertence the curious Northern Ireland Assembly apparently liked it but the rest of us do not like the fact that what has not been remedied in England and Wales because it would involve legislation is omitted in respect of Northern Ireland because we do not have to be legislated for, but can just be governed by Order in Council.
We come back to the same old grievance. We have returned to King Charles' head—the evil of legislating differently for different parts of the United Kingdom and in particular of legislating for Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council.
What ought to be done — surely the Treasury's interest must be engaged—is that the Water Act 1981 for England and Wales should be amended. It is a minor scandal that when the Minister in Northern Ireland in the

Department of the Environment communicated with his opposite number in England and Wales he received a vague and distant suggestion that the Department might get round to considering what to do in England and Wales. I have to say to the Treasury—if my voice will reach it —"Wake up; there is £14.5 million a year there to be saved for the trouble of introducing amending legislation. Surely you can lean on the Department of the Environment to the extent of getting it to put its house in order in England and Wales and save that substantial sum from going every year down the drain as a result of that blunder."
Until that is done, until that happens, and certainly until there is a definite assurance that that is going to happen in England and Wales, we in Northern Ireland will not sit down under the indignity, because we are legislated for by order in Council, of having imposed upon us what the Government are afraid to impose upon England and Wales. Against that we are duty bound to protest. So strongly do we feel that duty upon us that many of my hon. Friends and I have temporarily quit the electoral field in Northern Ireland in order, alone of all the parties of Northern Ireland represented in the House, to make sure that our grievance is heard and is marked.
Let me once again, therefore, reaffirm what the grievance is. That grievance is that, by reason of the fact that in Northern Ireland we are under temporary arrangements, annually renewed, legislated for by Order in Council, that which ought to ge done in England and Wales and which would save £14.5 million in England and Wales if it were done there, is imposed upon us by sleight of hand. We do not like it. We protest against it, and despite the fact that the order is beneficial to the agricultural and forestry interests in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, we shall protest against it in the proper manner in due course.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is fortunate for me that I do not have to answer the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), although I congratulate him, as I often do, on putting his finger on the essential matter that preoccupies Northern Ireland Members. I had some sympathy for the Minister—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We all have.

Mr. Bell: Several of us here have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman.
I had greater sympathy for the Minister when he was trying to explain to the House the problem that he had, as he moved to the Scottish system, of trying not to put money into the hands of free-thinking, free market insurance companies and take it out of the pockets of the hard-pressed water ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister believes sincerely and deeply in free enterprise, and that he also believes in restrictions on public expenditure. Therefore the dilemma that he faces is understandable.
I took on board the comments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) when he said that in this matter what he described as a wee bit of wit should have been used. We might all benefit from that wit when we discuss the great ironies and illogicalities of orders which, as the right hon. Member for South Down said, are


different in Scotland from those in England and Wales, and are now in parallel with Northern Ireland and Scotland. It would be of some puzzlement to the British public if they were aware of the great variety on this matter.
The essence of the order is aptly contained in the explanatory note dated August 1984 provided by the Department of the Environment. Essentially, it is that the order amends the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 by inserting a new article 57A, which makes the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland liable for damage caused by escapes of water on to agricultural or forestry land. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to the domestic user of water and said that that was not covered by the order. The liability under the order is absolute and covers escapes of water from pipes for which the Department is responsible. That covers water mains and service pipes coming within the Department's responsibility.
It is true, of course, that when the proposals came before the Environment Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, although the proposals were generally welcomed, concern was expressed at the damage caused to agricultural and forestry land by escapes of harmful substances such as sewage and chemicals coming from equipment, plant or premises for which the Department has a vested responsibility. However, even absolute liability, to which I referred earlier, cannot be that absolute. The order will not extend to certain undertakings empowered by statute to provide public services; for example, railways and road transport undertakings. In addition, the Department will not be obliged to compensate a person who suffers loss or damage through an act for which he is wholly responsible. In essence, therefore, the basis of the order is that damage caused to uninsurable agricultural or forestry land shall be covered, but that there is a limit to the burden on public expenditure.
If I may revert again to my barrister training, I note that in the past liability rested with the Department only when an escape had been caused by the Department's negligence. The question of negligence might be relevant to the home owner who finds himself the subject of a burst water main and is not covered by insurance. He might nevertheless be covered by negligence. This principle was established by an English legal precedent, Green v. Chelsea Waterworks, and that was decided in the Court of Appeal as long ago as 1894.
Some reference has been made to the position taken by the Ulster Farmers Union. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made the apt point that such proposals and such an order would be acceptable to the farmers union. The reasons for that are obvious. It has also sought additional amendments to cover leakages of harmful substances even in very small amounts which can lead to serious damage and losses to users of waterways, including farmers and livestock farmers. It appears to me that the farmers union, while it draws attention to valid points, goes further than this order should go.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East makes the point that possibly the wrong questions were asked in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by the Environment Committee. It is right, as he said, that we are the backstop, the ultimate legislators who must try to put the right questions in the right circumstances. The Environment Committee recognised that there was a distinction between water and sewerage operations, whereby the Department

had sole control over the former, whereas third parties can discharge effluent, pollutants and the like. It recognised also the increased financial implications should the area of liability be broadened. It also accepted the high level of public scrutiny to which the Department is subject in Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I should like to take on board all the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who never ceases to draw the attention of the House to the various anomalies which we face when we are dealing with such orders. He puts them in a constitutional context as well as a practical and pragmatic context. The Opposition take note of the various points that have been made and the differences between Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation and that of Wales and England. Nevertheless, we feel constrained to support the Government and to commend the order to the House.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), as always, expressed a measured, careful and in many cases sound view, although I cannot agree with everything that he said.
The hon. Member referred at the beginning of his speech to Scottish Members. There is no sign that any Scottish Members feel aggrieved by the fact that legislation was brought forward for Scotland of the type proposed for Northern Ireland. Scottish Members could easily have intervened in the debate this evening, but none seem to be bursting through the doors to say that rising movements throughout Scotland are protesting that they are not having the same privileges of paying their insurance premiums, twice, as it were, with the company then getting back the money from the water authorities — in that case, as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, from the local councils.
I do not think that it is a question of the amount of money. The right hon. Member for South Down referred to the £14.5 million that I mentioned earlier. That is a lot of money. Of course, everything could be said to be on the margin. Mention has already been made of "Bleak House". As Mr. Micawber said in another Dickens novel, happiness or misery depends upon whether one is sixpence below £20 or sixpence above £20. I enjoy agreeing with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East when I can, but I must mildly rebuke him over his remarks concerning the £14.5 million. That was a considerable issue. The right hon. Member for South Down said that he hoped that the Treasury was listening because if the legislation which now applies in Scotland, and is to apply in Northern Ireland, were introduced in England and Wales there would be a considerable saving to the public purse.
The Assembly has been referred to time and again. Today, I ate with one of the chairmen of committees in Northern Ireland, although he was not the chairman of the Environment Committee or the Agricultural Committee I met the chairman of the Department of Finance and Personnel Committee today. But the Assembly's recommendation is clear. The Environment Committee recommends that no change be made to the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. That was its view.
In my opening remarks I said that, of the 30 nongovernmental bodies consulted on the legislation, only one had made such a representation. As I knew that some hon. Member would ask me about that, I made a note in the


margin about that body. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East implied, it was the Law Society. I did not include that at the beginning, because it did not particularly strengthen my case, but I had it in reserve if required. But whether or not it was the Law Society, we are here as legislators, and Assembly Members were making their comments as people elected to represent the Northern Ireland electorate.
It should be pointed out that the Association of Local Authorities, Shelter and the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux were also consulted, yet none of them was against the proposal. They either did not reply—although they were not busy electioneering at the time—or they nodded in agreement from their offices.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East queried whether the Crown could be sued. I am not a lawyer, and I should perhaps take legal advice on that. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) would save me from having to answer that point. But I doubt whether the Crown can be sued in that regard. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who spoke for the Opposition, said, the right hon. Member for South Down often puts matters on a more general constitutional plane. Since being privileged to be a Minister for Northern Ireland, I have listened to the logical and careful arguments that the right hon. Member has regularly put forward. He said that the grievance had been heard and marked. I am not quite sure what marked means in this case, but as a former schoolmaster I know that one can either tick it or put a cross against it. I shall leave my response to his comments there.
The right hon. Member for South Down used a phrase that I had never heard before, about taking butter from a dog's mouth. One problem is that once one legislates so that certain people have additional privileges, it is difficult to take them back.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Fifty million of them.

Dr. Boyson: Probably fewer than that in England and Wales. I always say that one cannot take a bone from a dog without being bitten. I do not usually find dogs eating butter. They are usually eating bones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Minister for Housing and Construction about what could be done to rectify an error that was made at that time in section 6 of the 1981 Act, and the last line of his reply was:
I am happy to assure you that we will think again about the way in which section 6 has operated.
We thought again when we laid this order and decided that it was not our job to put money into the pockets of the insurance companies, which drew money from people and then got it back again, so that they were paid twice over, without any sign of premiums being lowered. It is not our job to stop people from being prudent and insuring when possible, because we believe that they should be prudent. It is not our job to increase Government expenditure—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough agreed that that has been my consistent view — but, where people cannot insure — the pressure for the original section 6 came

from the fact that it was almost impossible to insure forestry and agricultural land—the Government should step in.
On those counts we commend the order to the House. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it in the Lobby when right hon. and hon. Members opposite show their displeasure with the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 6.

Division No. 193]
[11·10 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Lang, Ian


Ancram, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lester, Jim


Baldry, Tony
Lightbown, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lilley, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Lord, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lyell, Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Macfarlane, Neil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Maclean, David John


Bright, Graham
Marlow, Antony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Crthpes)
 Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Bruinvels, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Butcher, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Chope, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Neale, Gerrard


Conway, Derek
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Newton, Tony


Couchman, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Durant, Tony
Parris, Matthew


Emery, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Evennett, David
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Powley, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Forth, Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fox, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Silvester, Fred


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Galley, Roy
Steen, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Gow, Ian
Sumberg, David


Gregory, Conal
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thurnham, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Waller, Gary


Hanley, Jeremy
Watson, John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Watts, John


Harris, David
Whitfield, John


Hayes, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Heddle, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hickmet, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Hind, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy>


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Yeo, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)



Hunt, David (Wirral)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Mr. John Major and


Knowles, Michael
Mr. Peter Lloyd.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Clay, Robert



McCusker, Harold
Tellers for the Noes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. A. Cecil Walker and


Nicholson, J.
Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee —[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — St. John's Colliery, Maesteg

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Ray Powell: I requested this Adjournment debate after receiving a letter from the director of the South Wales area of the National Coal Board, Mr. Philip Weekes, who informed me that he had recommended the closure of St. John's Colliery, Maesteg. He attempts to justify his recommendation in his letter and in his press statement, both of which are dated 16 April. I shall deal with this matter in my closing remarks in order to ensure that the Minister does not overlook the special request that I shall be making to him.
The motion ends with the words
the consequences of the closure of St. John's Colliery, Maesteg.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister may not be aware of some of the issues that I intend to raise, since they relate specifically to Maesteg and Wales and should therefore be dealt with by a Welsh Office Minister. However, I realise that the Minister was the winner of the Observer Mace for the British Universities debating competition in 1966. Therefore, I appreciate that he will be able to deliver a masterful reply. Nevertheless, I plead with him to recognise that unless a positive response is forthcoming it could result in the economic and social collapse of the whole community.
In his letter of 16 April, Mr. Philip Weekes stated that he was recommending the closure of St. John's colliery. He said that 350 men out of a total work force of some 830 had said that they were prepared to take the option of voluntary redundancy. The recommendation has not been agreed by the National Coal Board or the National Union of Mineworkers. We do not know whether the coal board could be persuaded by the NUM and others to keep the colliery open.
I am pleased to have drawn a place in the Adjournment debate to place on record the complete and overwhelming opposition to the closure of St. John's colliery felt in the Maesteg area. Some 830 jobs in the colliery and a further 200 to 300 related jobs would be lost.
The colliery is the last in the Llynfi valley. It is the town's last hope of remaining economically viable. Last Saturday morning in the council chamber I met representatives from the chamber of trade and religious organisations, the leader of the Ogwr borough council and other borough and county councillors, and representatives from the community council and other organisations. I intend to express tonight their views with the hope that somehow, somewhere, someone will listen to their pleas for help and that their 12-month struggle to retain their only pit will not have been wasted. I hope that the debts incurred will not be paid off with the 30 pieces of silver which are available to buy off the jobs of their sons and grandsons.
I stated many times during the protracted, demoralising 12-month dispute that Arthur Scargill's fight was not my constituents' fight. Their fight was not for more pay or better conditions; it was to retain their jobs, pits and communities. This proposed closure is a classic illustration of what the fight was about.
The Government did not listen then, and I doubt whether Mr. MacGregor or his Welsh boyo, Philip


Weekes, will listen now. As they butcher the social and economic fabric of the Welsh communities, the harvest will be a complete reversal in the polls at the next election and the return of a powerful Labour Administration committed to a just society free from the scourge of the unemployment that we are now enduring.
It is fitting to consider the lovely and picturesque town of Maesteg some six years ago. It is the proud home and birthplace of saints, bards, singers, druids, miners and rugby players. It is a land full of folklore, custom, traditions and legends. It does us all good sometimes to look with humility and gratitude at the stock from which we were hewn and the quarry from which we were dug and to remember the people and influences that shaped our lives.
In Maesteg, legend has it that there was a maid of Cefn Ydfa. Hers was a romantic story that would take more than an Adjournment debate to tell. I want to go back not to the days of the maid of Cefn Ydfa but a mere six years when it was almost impossible to rent a shop in Commercial street or in the main shopping centre. It was impossible to hire a stall in the market, because the town was thriving. Unemployment was at 3·5 per cent. Of that figure, 2 per cent. of the people were unemployable because of silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The remainder were those employed in building or other such jobs registered as in transit from one job to another.
In the Maesteg area, 24 per cent. of the males are unemployed. If 830 jobs are lost at St. John's colliery, the prospect for jobs in the future is bleak and male unemployment may reach 45 to 50 per cent.
The boarded windows of shops in Commercial street symbolise the decay that has attacked that once flourishing town in six years. This community has suffered on all fronts—the catastrophic decline in the mining industry, the recently-lost development area status, and the 'worst catastrophe of all, the election of a Tory Government in May 1979. During the past six years unemployment has escalated and the town is now gripped in a depression that cries out for Government action, cries out for hope and cries out for reasoned and rational assistance.
The catalogue of decline since May 1979 has meant an increase in unemployment from July 1978 to July 1981 of 158 per cent. for the male population and 180 per cent. for the female population. The closure of the Caerau and Coegnant collieries has meant the loss of 483 jobs at Caerau and 392 at Coegnant. There has been a rundown of the Port Talbot steelworks with the loss of 315 jobs for workers living in Maesteg. Cutbacks and closures have shed 578 jobs. Multimetal Products, Louis Edwards Limited, Mastercraft Furniture Limited all closed in 1981 and there were 300 redundancies at Revlon International in early 1981. There were also 200 job losses at British Tissues paper mill in the Llynfi valley. All those have come about since May 1979.
What can we do to help the community of my constituents—the male and female unemployed, the business men, the bankers? At last Saturday's meeting I was asked to ask the Minister to class Ogwr borough, and Maesteg in particular, as a very special development area and regrade its development status up the two places which it was put down some weeks ago, to increase the inducement to industrialists to come into the area with more grant aid, to call on the Welsh Development Agency

to look at the problem of that community area and take appropriate action, to call on the Development Agency for Rural Wales to assist and to ask for more funding from NCB (Enterprise) Limited to establish factories and improve what is already available at Tondu.
There is also the need to continue the fight to retain this colliery and there is a need for the plans for extracting coal from the Margam reserves and seams to be examined. Many miners have explained to me that these plans could be used, could work and could save the colliery for future generations. At the height of the strike there were daily bulletins about Margam development. It is passing strange, to say the least, that we have not heard a peep about the future development of Margam since the miners returned to work.
The help needed could be readily made available. The Government could have acted to retain the industries lost since 1979. We have skilled, trained, experienced, efficient and responsible workers on the dole in and around Maesteg. All that is needed is a deliberate attempt by the Government to assist in protecting the colliery itself because I have yet to be convinced that the pit is uneconomic. I have yet to be convinced that a deliberate, motivated attempt to overspend to qualify for justified closure was not orchestrated by Philip Weekes and other NCB officials.
I ask the Minister to give me a clear and concise promise that he will set in train an inquiry to establish why £8 million of public money was spent on St. John's colliery, who sanctioned that expenditure, on what it was spent, whether it was in search of coal seams and who advised where to carry out the search.
I believe that it is nothing short of criminal and wilful neglect and irresponsibility to allow such massive expenditure without some research. The Minister responsible will in all probability be asking for further funding for the NCB soon, and I ask him to justify this expenditure. Only £10 million has been allocated for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. for the whole of the nation, but already £8 million has been spent in searching for what is now suggested to be non-existent coal in St. John's.
I recommend that the Minister looks at columns 601 to 610 of yesterday's Hansard, which has questions on job creation, answered by the Secretary of State for Wales. He will realise why communities such as Maesteg are desperate to see employment created, because there is no chance for any jobs.
I also ask the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of attracting tourism to areas such as Maesteg. Today, the Welsh Affairs Committee departed to investigate tourism in Wales. I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is Chairman of the Committee, that he should have planned to go to see some of the valleys where there is a need for tourism to be developed, rather than going to the northern part of Wales, where tourism is flourishing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), which led him to raise this issue tonight. Possible colliery closures, particularly in areas of high unemployment, are of concern to us all, and as a Merseyside Member I know only too well the serious problems caused by unacceptably high levels of unemployment.
The hon. Member has looked up my career, and he kindly mentioned my success in the Observer Mace. He did not mention my pride in having been born in Glyn Ceiriog near Llangollen in North Wales. I appreciate the significant point that he raised about the importance of communities in Wales. He will realise that many of the points that he has raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall bring them immediately to the attention of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent history of St. John's colliery, but in view of his remarks about the management of the colliery, and his remarks which have been quoted in the newspapers, it might be helpful if I outline the facts from the NCB.
Over the past few years the National Coal Board in South Wales has spent many millions of pounds in an effort to make St. John's a viable proposition. A number of faces have been opened up, but the poor geology of the area has in each case made it impossible to mine from them a reasonable quantity of coal. In fact, in the last full year of production—1983–84—output and productivity were the lowest in the South Wales coalfield. The area director, Philip Weekes has made it clear that these results were due, not to standards of work, but to the appallingly difficult geological conditions.
St. John's is recommended for closure by the area director because of the exhaustion of all reasonable reserves, despite massive efforts to secure more. The unions have suggested—and it is reported that the hon. Gentleman has suggested too—that the pit could be made viable by reducing the work force from 830 men to about 500, thereby cutting costs. But that would not do, because the forces of nature are not impressed by cost-cutting exercises and the massive geological problems would remain.
The hon. Gentleman has argued that more money should be made available and that we should have an inquiry into the money already spent. That money has been spent wisely. Boreholes have been drilled, and, sadly, similar geological problems have been encountered in all the colliery's coal seams. The hon. Gentleman believes that considerable sums of money have been wasted. How much more money does he suggest the NCB might need to spend in proving that the exceptionally difficult geological conditions will simply not permit further worthwhile seams to be established?
At a reconvened colliery review meeting on 16 April the area director said that he saw no alternative to recommending to the NCB that St. John's should close. The meeting was held under the existing colliery review procedure. I understand that a very effective presentation was made by the deputy director, mining and the chief mining engineer, illustrating on slides the results over recent years, which have been most disappointing — mainly, if not wholly, because of the difficult geology. They explained that the board had been forthcoming with major development works. Those works were explained in detail. They need not have been, as many of those present already knew the facts. Those major development works had succeeded in making available only short-life faces on which production to any reasonably acceptable level had been inhibited by faults and other geological features.
The mainstay seam for many years—Gellideg—had been worked to its limit, and there had since then been a marked deterioration in performance. It was explained at that meeting that it was
unlikely that any of the options considered by the investigating team could survive the type of geology which boreholes and other determinations had proved in the other seams.
The early stages of the existing procedure are being adhered to. The matter, I understand, now lies with the trade unions. I understand that neither the NUM nor the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers have yet given notice that they intend to appeal to the NCB about the future of St. John's. If the unions were to decide within the next month to appeal to the NCB, the next stage would be the national appeal meeting. The procedure after that would depend on the success in bringing in the modified colliery review procedure.
I understand that the NUM has made no technical inspection of the pit since before the strike. During that time, two producing faces were lost. Production is down to about 550 tonnes a day. Geological problems with the new S12 face may bring that figure down to 250 tonnes a day. With only one face now operational, there is little productive work available, sadly, for many members of the work force.
Many of the men whom the board has interviewed so far want to take voluntary redundancy and to leave the industry on the generous terms which we have discussed recently in the House. Those who wish to remain in the industry will be offered alternative jobs at other collieries.
Pits have always closed — because they were exhausted, because mining conditions became too difficult, or because they became uneconomic. Nobody denies that the closure of any pit can have serious implications for the individuals concerned and their community. That is why the board and the Government have gone to such lengths to ensure that, if a closure has to take place, there are good redundancy terms for:hose who choose to accept them and alternative jobs with generous transfer allowances for those who wish to stay in the industry. But that is also why we are as concerned as everyone in the House that some closures which might not have been necessary have become inevitable as a result of the self-inflicted damage of the industrial dispute of the past 12 months.
I have to say that because the hon. Member said much with which I disagreed about butchery and slaughter and the coming of a Labour Government, which would bring strength to the industry. Labour Governments were responsible for the closure of a total of 330 pits. We have debated that so many times that I shall not reiterate the arguments, except to say that there are answers to his assertions. I understand that he would not accept them and I do not propose to take up any more time trying to respond to his points one by one.
As for the new review procedure, I understand from the NCB that the first meeting of the joint sub-committee, comprising the board and the industry's trade unions, has been held to discuss the modified colliery review procedure. It was agreed to set it up at the special meeting of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council on 11 April, following the agreement last October to examine the colliery review procedure. The three unions, the NUM, NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Management have nominated two representatives to join three representatives from the NCB on the sub-committee.


Now that the strike is over, I strongly hope that this newer element will speedily be implemented in the review procedure. Provided that all those involved adopt a reasonable approach, agreement should be reached quickly, and disputed closures will be put to the new independent review body.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Margam project several times in the House and blamed the Government for not bringing it forward fast enough. The board has now received planning permission from West Glamorgan county council to build a colliery at Margam, which would employ about 650 people. However, the board has yet to make a final decision on whether to proceed with the project. If it decides to proceed, the next step will be to refer it to the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman spent some time talking of the effect on his community, and surrounding ones, of any possible closure. He is rightly worried about the effect of the proposed closure on the unemployment figures. We should not allow ourselves to forget that there are jobs in the industry for all who wish to remain in it. Those who leave choose to do so and receive redundancy terms which are the most generous in the country.
I should like to consider the NCB's enterprise company, which was a positive step to relieve the unemployment that follows pit closures. NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. was established by the board precisely for that purpose and to take measures which would create new jobs in areas affected by closures. The company has been in operation since October 1984 and has already established links with enterprise agencies throughout the country. It has done particularly well in south Wales, where the Welsh Development Agency is already operating, and where the Government have been creating a positive climate for job creation.
Ogwr is among the first area in Wales to benefit from the activities of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The Ogwr partnership trust is now operational and a manager from the National Westminster bank has been seconded to it at the former NCB training centre at Tondu. The centre is being leased at a peppercorn rent to provide start-up units. The NCB is also providing revenue support of £30,000 a year over three years. Urban programme aid is expected to be sought and some discussions with officials have already taken place.
I can also tell the House that I understand from the board that, on Thursday, it will meet the leaders of Mid-Glamorgan council and of other local authorities to discuss what further initiatives can be taken in the area.
The present unemployment rates are unacceptably high, but the Secretary of State for Wales has done much to attract new industry into the area. Wales receives more than its fair share of overseas investment. I am glad to have on the Front Bench with me the Minister of State, and I understand from him that since January 1984, offers of section 7 financial assistance have created and safeguarded more than 2,000 jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency alone. Stirling work is being done by the Welsh Development Agency. Three units are available for letting in the constituency, 74 in total in Mid-Glamorgan.
As I said at the outset, I share in many ways the hon. Gentleman's deep concern over the effects of unemployment on his area and the results of it on the local communities, but, unlike him, I see every reason to look forward to future prosperity. All the points that he raised tonight will be carefully considered by me, by the National Coal Board and by the Welsh Office.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve o' clock.